Once and for all, Bush won in 2000 fair and square.

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

The "system" is controlled by money. Bush and his Oil Thugs won the money battle in 2000 plain and simple. There is no other "Constitutional" way to explain what the Judges did stopping the process the way they did.

The citizens of the U.S. did not "Elect" George W Bush, he forced his way in. History may even show it to be the downfall point of the U.S.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I think the biggest problem with the electral college comes from the physical size of the states. Look at new england for example if the six states where one they would lose about 10 votes maybe more.

I think that number of people in the house should be double or maybe trippled which would then shift more votes towards populated centers. The red neck states defintly have to much power compared to there population.

I cordially invite you to move out to South Dakota with our 3 electoral votes. Then your vote will coun for more. 🙂

Nobody cares about us out here, Rep's or Dem's until we have a close vote. Then the population centers want to take any political power they can away from us. A lot of people out here don't bother voting just because it never makes a difference. In 9 out of 10 elections our votes don't make a differnce in the grand scheme of things anyway.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

First of all read my posts. I didn't not claim that Gore illegally lost the election, on the contrary Bush won it fair and square. On top of that I also believe that if it wasn't for the Electoral College Bush would have won the popular vote. As for bitching and moaning, I'm not, I'm just stating my opinion. Frankly I don't think changing the way we pick our President will result in different results, I'm stating that changing over to the Popular Vote will bring more people out to the polls which will do away with any doubts regarding the results.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

The "system" is controlled by money. Bush and his Oil Thugs won the money battle in 2000 plain and simple. There is no other "Constitutional" way to explain what the Judges did stopping the process the way they did.

The citizens of the U.S. did not "Elect" George W Bush, he forced his way in. History may even show it to be the downfall point of the U.S.

Then why wont history show the beginning was
Rutherford Hayes with all of his Oil Thugs? If the system is flawed, then you should (as a citizen of the US I assume) do what you can to legitimately change the process. Stop crying the same bs lines.

 

[Rainsford]

For those of you suggestion we electoral college haters come up with a better system, how's this?

Everyone gets one vote. Once all votes are in, they are counted up. Whoever has the most total votes wins the country. That way a candidate will spend the most time on the issues that matter to the most people, with relative importance given to each issue based on how many people care about it. I can't see a fairer or simpler system.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

First of all read my posts. I didn't not claim that Gore illegally lost the election, on the contrary Bush won it fair and square. On top of that I also believe that if it wasn't for the Electoral College Bush would have won the popular vote. As for bitching and moaning, I'm not, I'm just stating my opinion. Frankly I don't think changing the way we pick our President will result in different results, I'm stating that changing over to the Popular Vote will bring more people out to the polls which will do away with any doubts regarding the results.

Now you are confusing me... "If it wasn't for the Electoral College Bush would have won the popular vote" The Electoral had no effect on teh Popular. If I am incorrect, please explain it to me. Unless you are saying that more Republican party line voters would have come out without the Electoral.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

But the people in the state of Kansas have different needs than the people in the State of California. Never mind...

Exactly, never mind. Please try and explain to me how the people in Kansas needs aren't met because the person they wanted to be president does NOT become president. Does the presidnet typically impune entire states like you are saying because they as a whole, did not vote for them? No logic behind your argument. They have 2 senators just like California. The President does not only represent Californians if he happens to be a Democrat. The President does not only represent the Red states if he is a Republican. That's why we have checks and balances. So this tired old argument that the poor little states feel slighted if only one large state gets to decide the election is played out and tired. Big deal. The EC discriminates against where people live and that is wrong.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Shouldn't a "red neck" state have some say in who the President is? He sets the policy and direction of many programs. Should the people of say Rhode Island get to set the agricultural policy of the country? How much food do they produce? Due to differences in land mass, natural resorces, etc, we can't just go off of a straight popular vote.

If we turn this area into a "buffalo commons" as I've heard many people suggest, who will produce the agriculture products? How many jobs do this products provide in the more populated areas? Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
For those of you suggestion we electoral college haters come up with a better system, how's this?

Everyone gets one vote. Once all votes are in, they are counted up. Whoever has the most total votes wins the country. That way a candidate will spend the most time on the issues that matter to the most people, with relative importance given to each issue based on how many people care about it. I can't see a fairer or simpler system.

That is a start. Write this up and present it as a group to your leaders and see what the response is. If they shoot it down with no response, insist on more details. Use the system in teh way it was designed.

Now, if you are asking me my personal opinion, I don't like your plan for the reasons I have stated above. I could be in the minority though so please, polish it and submit it as a group.

[edit]I re-read your statement and figured that you were actually being serious so let me go ahead and be more specific. I am by no stretch a scholar on what states handle what industry mostly so I will use general statements. It is understood that there are some states that focus mainly on certain industry... Examples would be Idaho and Potatos, Hawaii and Sugar.

You stated "that way a candidate will spend the most time on the issues that matter to the most people with relative importance etc..." California issues have nothing to do with Idaho and it's primary crop/industy. Therefor, If the candidate basis his administration on California's grape/wine industry then Idaho is going to get no beneficial assistance from the administration.

For those that say it's the people not the state that vote the president into office... How many people would be farming potatos in Idaho if the administration didn't listen to their needs. The industry employs the people that vote. If you would rather ship all of the potatos in from other coutnries then so be it. I'd rather have the distributive voting power of the electoral though.[/edit

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

But the people in the state of Kansas have different needs than the people in the State of California. Never mind...

Exactly, never mind. Please try and explain to me how the people in Kansas needs aren't met because the person they wanted to be president does NOT become president. Does the presidnet typically impune entire states like you are saying because they as a whole, did not vote for them? No logic behind your argument. They have 2 senators just like California. The President does not only represent Californians if he happens to be a Democrat. The President does not only represent the Red states if he is a Republican. That's why we have checks and balances. So this tired old argument that the poor little states feel slighted if only one large state gets to decide the election is played out and tired. Big deal. The EC discriminates against where people live and that is wrong.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Shouldn't a "red neck" state have some say in who the President is? He sets the policy and direction of many programs. Should the people of say Rhode Island get to set the agricultural policy of the country? How much food do they produce? Due to differences in land mass, natural resorces, etc, we can't just go off of a straight popular vote.

If we turn this area into a "buffalo commons" as I've heard many people suggest, who will produce the agriculture products? How many jobs do this products provide in the more populated areas? Do you see where I'm going with this?

They DO get a say...the people in a "red neck" state would get exactly the same say as the people in a non-red neck state under a popular vote system. A lot of people seem to support a system where a red neck state individual gets MORE say than an individual from another state. How does that make sense?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

Irregardless of which canidate win's his priority will alway be to California. Every canidate in every election would only have one goal, to cater to the population centers. It is already this way to a large extent.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

First of all read my posts. I didn't not claim that Gore illegally lost the election, on the contrary Bush won it fair and square. On top of that I also believe that if it wasn't for the Electoral College Bush would have won the popular vote. As for bitching and moaning, I'm not, I'm just stating my opinion. Frankly I don't think changing the way we pick our President will result in different results, I'm stating that changing over to the Popular Vote will bring more people out to the polls which will do away with any doubts regarding the results.

Now you are confusing me... "If it wasn't for the Electoral College Bush would have won the popular vote" The Electoral had no effect on teh Popular. If I am incorrect, please explain it to me. Unless you are saying that more Republican party line voters would have come out without the Electoral.

Hello, that is exactly what I have been saying. In the highly populated states of NY and CA I believe than many Republican Voters didn't vote, especially in counties where there were high concentrations of Democrats, because it was a forgone conclusion that all of CA and NY Elelctoral votes were going to go to Gore!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

Irregardless of which canidate win's his priority will alway be to California. Every canidate in every election would only have one goal, to cater to the population centers. It is already this way to a large extent.

If all we're doing is counting raw votes...the candidate will cater to the most people. It won't matter if those people are concentrated in San Fran or scattered all over Iowa, the 2 million votes would could exactly the same. You seem to be arguing that it's somehow unfair to have the majority decide things.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

Irregardless of which canidate win's his priority will alway be to California. Every canidate in every election would only have one goal, to cater to the population centers. It is already this way to a large extent.

Actually even with the extremely large Republican Bloc that resides in CA the Republicans really aren't concentrating on that state because they have conceded it to Kerry due to the Electoral College.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

First of all read my posts. I didn't not claim that Gore illegally lost the election, on the contrary Bush won it fair and square. On top of that I also believe that if it wasn't for the Electoral College Bush would have won the popular vote. As for bitching and moaning, I'm not, I'm just stating my opinion. Frankly I don't think changing the way we pick our President will result in different results, I'm stating that changing over to the Popular Vote will bring more people out to the polls which will do away with any doubts regarding the results.

Now you are confusing me... "If it wasn't for the Electoral College Bush would have won the popular vote" The Electoral had no effect on teh Popular. If I am incorrect, please explain it to me. Unless you are saying that more Republican party line voters would have come out without the Electoral.

Hello, that is exactly what I have been saying. In the highly populated states of NY and CA I believe than many Republican Voters didn't vote, especially in counties where there were high concentrations of Democrats, because it was a forgone conclusion that all of CA and NY Elelctoral votes were going to go to Gore!

Exactly the problem. Well, not the one I've been talking about...but it's another issue. If I was a Bush supporter in CA I'd hate the system even more. Bush can't possibly win CA, so a Republican's vote counts for NOTHING.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

Irregardless of which canidate win's his priority will alway be to California. Every canidate in every election would only have one goal, to cater to the population centers. It is already this way to a large extent.

Actually even with the extremely large Republican Bloc that resides in CA the Republicans really aren't concentrating on that state because they have conceded it to Kerry due to the Electoral College.

I still think Bush would lose CA if everyone from both parties voted. But instead of those millions of Bush votes going down the drain, they could help him possibly win the country. I HATE Bush and the situation in CA and other states still pisses me off.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

You're missing the point Red, if it were a popular vote based election, the issues themselves would change. The candidates would focus exlusively on issues that pertain to the population centers. Even if voters didnt vote overwhelmingly for a liberal candidate in California (they would, and the entire political spectrum would shift to the left), they would still be voting on issues that only pertain to California.

-Max

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

You're missing the point Red, if it were a popular vote based election, the issues themselves would change. The candidates would focus exlusively on issues that pertain to the population centers. Even if voters didnt vote overwhelmingly for a liberal candidate in California (they would, and the entire political spectrum would shift to the left), they would still be voting on issues that only pertain to California.

-Max

So issues that would pertain to the Majority of the Americans would get precident? Sounds like a winner to me!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

But the people in the state of Kansas have different needs than the people in the State of California. Never mind...

Exactly, never mind. Please try and explain to me how the people in Kansas needs aren't met because the person they wanted to be president does NOT become president. Does the presidnet typically impune entire states like you are saying because they as a whole, did not vote for them? No logic behind your argument. They have 2 senators just like California. The President does not only represent Californians if he happens to be a Democrat. The President does not only represent the Red states if he is a Republican. That's why we have checks and balances. So this tired old argument that the poor little states feel slighted if only one large state gets to decide the election is played out and tired. Big deal. The EC discriminates against where people live and that is wrong.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Shouldn't a "red neck" state have some say in who the President is? He sets the policy and direction of many programs. Should the people of say Rhode Island get to set the agricultural policy of the country? How much food do they produce? Due to differences in land mass, natural resorces, etc, we can't just go off of a straight popular vote.

If we turn this area into a "buffalo commons" as I've heard many people suggest, who will produce the agriculture products? How many jobs do this products provide in the more populated areas? Do you see where I'm going with this?

They DO get a say...the people in a "red neck" state would get exactly the same say as the people in a non-red neck state under a popular vote system. A lot of people seem to support a system where a red neck state individual gets MORE say than an individual from another state. How does that make sense?

If you really think my vote counting more then yours makes such a difference, your welcome to move on out here. Get used to living in a state that always ranks 48th, 49th, or 50th in the national per capita income. We also consistently rank 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the number of two income families. We have oit made!! Our votes really count, LOL!

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

Your argument is based on the premise that everybody in large states are going to vote one way and not another which is a fallacy

You're missing the point Red, if it were a popular vote based election, the issues themselves would change. The candidates would focus exlusively on issues that pertain to the population centers. Even if voters didnt vote overwhelmingly for a liberal candidate in California (they would, and the entire political spectrum would shift to the left), they would still be voting on issues that only pertain to California.

-Max

So issues that would pertain to the Majority of the Americans would get precident? Sounds like a winner to me!

And you see all those "redneck" states accepting this, and quietly slipping into the depths of economic, and social policy ruin?

-Max

 

[Darkhawk28]

You know what? If the situation was reversed and Gore beat Bush in the electoral college and not the popular vote, the Republicans would be screaming for a change in the system. All this "let's protect the lower population states" stuff is just blowing smoke and false caring.

 

[GMElias]

Originally posted by: loki8481
but the population of Oklahoma is 3,450,654, compared with California's 33,871,648.

OK has 1 electoral vote for every 230,043 people, whereas California has 1 electoral vote for every 615,848 people

even though California has more electoral votes, the vote of an Oklahoman is worth a lot more. for them to be on equal footing, CA would have to be worth almost three times as many electoral votes as it is now.

Good point.
-Elias

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
You know what? If the situation was reversed and Gore beat Bush in the electoral college and not the popular vote, the Republicans would be screaming for a change in the system. All this "let's protect the lower population states" stuff is just blowing smoke and false caring.

I voted for Gore, I will 90% likely vote for Kerry... I think the Electoral system makes perfect sense, and that a popular vote system would damage our country.

-max

 

[Darkhawk28]

Elias, see my longer post above.