Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's been a lot of discussion of the electoral college and the popular vote, so i'll propose an algorithm that gets made up by computer geniuses that gives more electoral votes to states that show a propensity to actually vote for the candidate and not just blindly vote for a party. This way, the smartest and most educated voters decide the president and not states that automatically vote one way no matter who the candidates are, this will force candidates to really battle hard for swing states knowing the electorals will rise in states that show us that the residents of that state have an open mind and can go for either candidate depending on what that candidate offers.
If one year a state is one party and then 4 years later its the other party, than that state gets a bump in their electorals for the following election. Not a lot, i'm not suggesting we give California 3 electoral votes and New Hampshire 55, but a little change to reward states that are actually THINKING and not just pulling a certain lever no matter what, reward intelligence and take demerits away from sheep voting.
The electoral college is fairly straight forward. If anything needs to be fixed it's the goofy primary system. It would be nice for independents to not to have to pick from two extremes of the spectrum.
I'll propose a better solution, every American's vote carries the same weight as every other American's vote.
One vote in New Hampshire is worth a LOT more than one vote in California, those two votes don't hold nearly the same weight. One vote in NH can literally win or lose the presidency, one vote in Calif cannot.
I'll propose a better solution, every American's vote carries the same weight as every other American's vote.
I have to agree. I see no logic behind the electoral system making national elections 'fair'. A national election should have no state boundaries. Elected persons should represent the entire nation, not some geographic region set aside by imaginary lines. I can see no logic behind one persons vote being worth more than another.
I have to agree. I see no logic behind the electoral system making national elections 'fair'. A national election should have no state boundaries. Elected persons should represent the entire nation, not some geographic region set aside by imaginary lines. I can see no logic behind one persons vote being worth more than another.
Yes we need another thread dedicated to this dried out, beat up topic.
Yes we need another thread dedicated to this dried out, beat up topic.
I didn't bring it up. If you are tired of it and have no input, then move on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
