If the Electoral backed by the USSC hands it to Bush after another Popular vote defeat you'll change your tune.
If the Electoral backed by the USSC hands it to Bush after another Popular vote defeat you'll change your tune.
What, try and cover up that his brother and Katherine colluded to throw the Election backed by the USSC that they cleary have bought out?
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
You stupid stupid idiots. Think about this one damn second. If it's off a popular vote every candidate will run solely for the interests of highly populated cities. Guess what...what's good for them is NOT what is necessarily good for those outside large cities or even the country as a whole. How about we pass a law that limits the price of corn to $.01 an ear? "Hooray" says 10,000,000 people in Southern California. "Boo" says the 10,000 farmers in Nebraska who promptly are forced to close shop. "Boo" says the 10,000,000 people in Southern California who now have no corn at all. This isn't some miniscule nation like Begium...this country has a vast and diverse landscape with diverse and disparate cultures throughout. The moment we go to a popular vote, everybody polarizes to the cities to get their share of the loot and assure their voice is heard. We may as well lease out 98% of our country for Canada to dry baby seal skins on.
What dumbass started this thread anyway?
What dumbass started this thread anyway?
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
WTF does that have to do with my point? The electoral college isn't about expediting the polling procedure.
The Electoral College can be thrown out and replaced with one computer. It can do the "weighting" to give Rhode Island the same Clout as California.
The Electoral College can be thrown out and replaced with one computer. It can do the "weighting" to give Rhode Island the same Clout as California.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
That's still an electoral college just without the pomp and circumstance...not a "popular vote" like some are proposing.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
so... you don't want to actually change the system in any substantive way... you just want to have a computer figure out who gets how many electoral college votes (since no one in the college votes out of their party)? you don't need a computer to do that.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
If the Electoral college was to have proportional representation within each state, that could provide a shift toward a popular vote but still protect the weight that currently exists of small states within the Electorical College.
Pure popular vote will punish rural america in favor of the large cities on the coasts.
Many people will not trust computers for the vote and/or to weigh the vote.
Pure popular vote will punish rural america in favor of the large cities on the coasts.
Many people will not trust computers for the vote and/or to weigh the vote.
Your example is ridiculous and has nothing to do with every American deserving a voice in who is President.
"since no one in the college votes out of their party"
You have to be joking. Guess you've never met a Super Delegate?
They get to do whatever they please.
The irony of ?super-delegate? rule
Sabato sees one scenario in which party leaders try to marshal the super-delegate forces to fend off a nominee they see as risky.
?Let?s say the party is moving toward Howard Dean, and most party elders are petrified by him being the nominee. It?s possible a substantial number of super-delegates could try to stop him with someone else.?
But Sabato added that if Dean wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, the party elders probably would not be able to stop him.
Smaller states already get an advantage of more senators per capita. I don't think they need an additional advantage of more electors per capita.
Also, why is having elections decided by majority of Americans any worse than having it decided by a handful of states like Florida and Ohio.
Under the current system, simply because majority of my state votes a certain way, my vote is essentially worthless. Under a popular system, every vote will count. So instead of pandering to a few battle ground states, presidential candidates will need to fight for vote of every American. Last time I checked the prez represents all Americans, not just those in battleground states.
Also, why is having elections decided by majority of Americans any worse than having it decided by a handful of states like Florida and Ohio.
Under the current system, simply because majority of my state votes a certain way, my vote is essentially worthless. Under a popular system, every vote will count. So instead of pandering to a few battle ground states, presidential candidates will need to fight for vote of every American. Last time I checked the prez represents all Americans, not just those in battleground states.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
And larger statres get more seats in the house. What's your point?
No, it means they'll pander only to people who live in densely populated areas...even worse.
The real reason your vote doesn't count isn't because of the electoral college, it's because of your state's decision to use the "winner-take-all" method of choosing electors. Here's a quote I agree with from the article conjur linked to:
That gives everyone in the US the same presidential election power as they have Congressional election power. I think that's a pretty fair system - it would mean candidates would have to campaign in many districts, on a more local level - not just in key "battleground" states.
Edit: Oh yeah - and another nice thing about the electoral college - it keeps power at the state level, where it should be. States decide their own election laws, such as how the electors are chosen. If you eliminate the winner-take-all method, then you get the power trickling down into the districts, closer to the people. I may not be able to have much of a voice in my state (one out of <n> millions), but at the district level I would feel my vote carries more weight, because now I'm only one out of ten-thousands, perhaps. As opposed to the national level, where my vote is one out 300 million (or whatever the voting population happens to be).
Which is why I think we should use it. It will hurt Democrats in short term because they won't be able to count on all of CA's electoral votes. But it will help CA, because our votes will actually matter in presidential election. As Arnold pointed out, we are paying way more than we are getting back, and we consistently get screwed over here over ethanol, energy, etc.
No, a computer program would "weigh" the difference from population densities. Not some biased "Delegates".
Overall, but per capita they get less or same seats.
People who live in densely populated areas should have as much of a vote as those living in rural areas. What a concept. And yes 10 Million people in LA SHOULD have more power than 10000 farmers in Idaho.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter