dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Mail5398
she seems to be up there with the antichrist.
yes, i would vote for the antichrist before hildebeast
Mark (666) these words! :shocked:
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Mail5398
she seems to be up there with the antichrist.
yes, i would vote for the antichrist before hildebeast
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: chucky2
There's nothing wrong with that IMHO...it counters out the wacked out ultra liberal nutjob areas that have high amounts of population. Mix it all together and it's even.
Chuck
Strange that you would argue specifically that certain people's votes should count more then others.
Ideally they wouldn't, and we'd just tally all the individual votes and be done with it.
The reality though is group think permeates. So when you have large groups - like large metropolitan areas - start leaning waaaaayyy towards one side, there's a problem there when you can go 30 miles outside of that area, travel another 1800, and that whole time, be in the center side or slightl left/slightly right of center mentality.
In short: I don't want wacko's from San Fran being able to choose the next Pres. because there's @ssloads more of them...anymore than I want some backwoods rednecks being able to. The current system, while imperfect, at least makes some effort to even that out.
If we were all either at the center, or just slightly to the left or right of center, then I'd say go one vote per person...unfortunately there's way too many polar opposites to do that.
EDITS: Sorry, please re-read only after my last edit time.
Chuck
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Mail5398
she seems to be up there with the antichrist.
yes, i would vote for the antichrist before hildebeast
Originally posted by: piasabird
You have to win each state state by state. There is no such thing as a popular vote. Most states vote all of their electoral college votes for one and only one candidate. They are all or nothing. I may not agree with this method, but under the constitution this is the way it is. This was done to protect the state's rights back in the day.
If you want a popular vote then we have to count all the military votes and all the absentee ballots.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't see any problem with the person who the most people support being the president. It just seems reasonable. That and San Francisco is one of the most successful and wealthy areas on earth. Maybe we should be taking some tips from them... haha.
Wikipedia
As an example, consider the 2000 election, in which the George W. Bush / Richard Cheney (Republican) and Albert Gore Jr. / Joseph Lieberman (Democratic) tickets were the primary contenders, with the Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke (Green) ticket taking a small but noteworthy minority. In California, the approximate proportion of votes for these tickets was 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Under the current system, all 54 electoral votes were for Gore/Lieberman. Under a simple proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: Mail5398
she seems to be up there with the antichrist.
yes, i would vote for the antichrist before hildebeast
You can't, his 2nd and final term ends next January.
See how easy that is?
Originally posted by: hellokeith
People are always yapping about the Electoral College when it doesn't favor their candidate/party. Imagine the disgust of the democrats if, in a purely popular vote, the republicans won the popular vote because of the 3rd-party candidate siphoned enough votes off the dem. (And yes I know it would be criticized if the opposite happened, though the lib media wouldn't make it such a priority.)
There is nothing wrong with the Electoral College system. If individual states want to alter the way they award the electoral votes, more power to them.
Originally posted by: chucky2
In short: I don't want wacko's from San Fran being able to choose the next Pres. because there's @ssloads more of them...a
Originally posted by: eskimospy (good thing that the ballot initiative A.) will fail miserably and B.) is almost certainly unconstitutional even if it somehow passed)
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: glenn1
Sure, why not, I can see it happening. However, it's not like the rules aren't clear, or the standards would be changed to benefit one party or the other - Electoral College votes are what counts, not popular.
Well, electoral college votes actually DO benefit the Republican party, but you're right in the sense that it's not like the rules aren't clear from the start.
How do electoral votes benefit GOP and not Dem's? Just curious.
They give a disproportional number of delegates to low population, read hick republican, states.
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Everyone's vote should count equally. The Electoral College system is antiquated and worthless.
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Everyone's vote should count equally. The Electoral College system is antiquated and worthless.
QFT.
Originally posted by: Perknose
The President is the leader of ALL the people. While I have no problem with the Senate favoring less populated states, for our President I say, ONE MAN ONE VOTE.
Why shoiuld one American citizen's presidential vote count for more than another?
ONE MAN ONE VOGTE.
(Watch the veritable tsunami of bleating, ad homs, and red-faced apoplexy now.) :roll:
Originally posted by: eskimospy
.........Changing the system so that all the states that favor the opposing party award their votes proportionally and all the states that support your party are winner take all is hardly a democratic change, it's an attempt to steal an election pure and simple. Everyone knows this. (good thing that the ballot initiative A.) will fail miserably and B.) is almost certainly unconstitutional even if it somehow passed)
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Everyone's vote should count equally. The Electoral College system is antiquated and worthless.
QFT.
Everyone's vote does count equally -- within your own state. That's the distinction people miss.
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
.........Changing the system so that all the states that favor the opposing party award their votes proportionally and all the states that support your party are winner take all is hardly a democratic change, it's an attempt to steal an election pure and simple. Everyone knows this. (good thing that the ballot initiative A.) will fail miserably and B.) is almost certainly unconstitutional even if it somehow passed)
Please explain why you would think that would be "almost certainly unconstitutional" given that Maine and Nebraska currently split their electoral votes among district results and instead of all their electoral votes going to a single winning candidate. :roll:
Edit, looks like ElFenix beat me to it.
Originally posted by: Fern
prorationing state electoral college votes