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.
great idea when there were 13 colonies, not so much today. The founding fathers could never have envisioned the westward expansion and territory gains.
why should one person in Wyoming have the same power it takes 137,000 people in Ohio?
it's so simple, one person, one vote, what are you scared of???
You know what they are scared of. The Dems have won the popular vote in the last 6 out of 7 elections. It's funny how so many pointed to Brexit as a 'sign.' If we voted in a referendum as the Brits did, Trump would be back in his homes suing and scamming people.
It's amazing how quickly liberals look for a way to change the system when they lose. Any bets on which side of the argument Moore would be on if Hillary had won the EC but lost the popular? I'll bet we wouldn't hear a peep from him about changing the rules.
As it is, he's welcome to try. It's a long, drawn-out process which, considering his physical condition, he probably wouldn't see the outcome of.
I'd actually be for proportional electoral distribution per state. No more districts, no more gerrymandering, no more winner take all - a straight ratio of votes for anyone with enough of a percent of the total to have at least one EC vote. Would be better than the hodge podge of state specific systems we have now.
You know what they are scared of. The Dems have won the popular vote in the last 6 out of 7 elections. It's funny how so many pointed to Brexit as a 'sign.' If we voted in a referendum as the Brits did, Trump would be back in his homes suing and scamming people.
I think you might be surprised if that truly happened. Many people don't vote at all, because they are convinced that their vote doesn't count. Dems in Texas, Republicans in CA.
But it really doesn't matter, because it will never happen.
You know what they are scared of. The Dems have won the popular vote in the last 6 out of 7 elections. It's funny how so many pointed to Brexit as a 'sign.' If we voted in a referendum as the Brits did, Trump would be back in his homes suing and scamming people.
Do you know why the Dems keep winning the popular vote?
It's because democracy only works up until the point that the people figure out they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. We are at that point.
I've thought of that idea before. I think for states with a lot of electoral votes it makes sense. California has what 54 votes? It really makes a republican voter worthless in terms of a vote. That's one reason I always say that going by the popular vote in the final results is stupid. People always say "well Clinton won by 3 million votes". Well, how many people decided not to even vote because they know their voice would not be heard. Same goes for Democrats in Texas.
Only issue though is states with only 3 electoral votes. How do you split that up? I don't think it's fair to split up 3...2 Republican. 1 Democrat just because 33% of the votes go Democrat.
Why isn't that fair though?
Let's use your 3 Elector example, and put it in a specific scenario... an unlikely and extreme one, but one that I think illustrates the issue well.
In districts 1 and 2, 99% of people voted Republican, 1% Democrat. So before District 3 has cast it's final votes, Democrats only had 1% of the vote in that state. District 3 counts it all up and only 45% of people voted Republican, while 55% voted Democrat. Now, in the state as a whole, Democrats only have about 20% of the vote. Roughly 1/5 of Democrats will award 1/3 of the votes from that state. BUT it's not about the state, it's about the individual districts.
The Founding Fathers wanted a country, a society, that was build on civic engagement and public action. That district spoke, and most people there wanted a Democratic candidate (note: they chose an elector, who I feel should be allowed to decide to vote for someone other than who they are pledge to, only after careful consideration of course). It's about giving communities a voice. They don't need to be viewed as part of the whole (their state) rather have their own voices that stands on it's own.
Why doesn't the left change? Are you too smart for the deplorables? An increasing amount of people don't want the division that the left is selling, and are tiring of their childish behavior and tantrums.
Obama's slogan was CHANGE. Somehow it is supposed to apply to everyone else but the left.
So... I understand each of these words individually, but I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend what it is you're trying to tell me.
It's odd, I recognize this as English but it reads like something else.
Please be more clear about what you're trying to say.
Why would Wyoming agree to this? Their citizens would have no voice in the governing of our country. They would be slaves for all intents and purposes, to the five ruling states.
Wyoming still has disproportionate representation in the house and Senate even with a popularly elected President. I'd say at this point the system hasn't gotten to undemocratic. It should never be completely Democratic, but I think it's time for the Presidency to be based on a more Democratic model.
Michael Moore predicts Trump to win electoral vote in 2020. Says we need to get rid of electoral college now
So tell Moore to run for office, get elected and propose a bill.
Right now he's just another rich loud mouth who wants to dictate the terms and conditions under which the country should be run. So he doesn't count.
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.