“Under a popular vote system your vote counts for more. Had we had a popular vote system in place in 2000 and 2004 we’d have very different presidents elected,” said Bysiewicz.
People will argue till doomsday about the 2000 election. But in 2004, Bush won the popular vote by about 3.5 million votes. So how do they get away with making a factually false statement like that?
I've found that Leftist Liberals don't let the facts stand in their way.
Truth is totally irrelevant to the scumbag Democrats. Obviously.
what they’re saying is, had popular vote counted, W would have never been up for re-election in ‘04 as he would have lost in ‘00..
this is all well and good UNTIL a Republican wins the popular vote, but the Dem would have won the electoral college..THEN we’ll see a scream to go back to the way it was..
But we would probably have had very different candidates nominated too and a much different campaign strategy. Does anyone really think Al Gore would have been the VP nominee in 1992 if not for the fact that the DemocRATS needed a ticket that could pick off a few states in their weakest region, so they ran a ticket with two southerners. Al Gore still hoped to pick off a few southern states in 2000 as the presidential candidate, but two terms as VP where showed his true colors helped kill off support in the south. If Gore had merely won his home state, he would have won the election.
The whole process of nominating presidential candidates is centered around trying to attract votes from as many states as possible not by racking up huge majorities in just a few states. Using a sports example, college football teams don't get ranked in the BCS based on the number of points they rack up against inferior teams. So what if Nebraska could put up 80+ points against Akron. That doesn't tell you whether they could beat USC.
Because they are idiots. You can’t take something static and throw in a dynamic without recalculating the outcome. If we would have had a popular vote system instead of the EC, the candidates would have campaigned differently and states that went deep blue might not have bee so blue. The result would have been completely different.
Take some of the most liberals states where many republicans don’t bother to vote because they know that their state will go to the ‘Rats and what difference does it make if it is 65-35 or 66-34? Instead if we had a popular vote, people might be encouraged to get out and vote knowing that their vote went to the national total.
Also, the candidates would campaign in more in the most populous states and pay little attention to smaller states. However, every vote would count from every state.
Not only is her statement incorrect as to 2004 but she is counting on changing the rules after the 2000 election. If everyone knew before the election that it would be by popular vote they would have voted differently.
That’s like saying after the world series is over the team with the fewest runs should have been the winner if the rules were different. If the rules were different the game would have been played differently too.
Typical lefty.