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.
No, they are swing states and they carry just enough electoral votes each to decide an election. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but it was Floridas 29 electoral votes that decided the election.
If Al Gore would have won his home state of Tenn in 2000 then FL would have never been an issue...Just sayin
No, they are swing states and they carry just enough electoral votes each to decide an election. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but it was Floridas 29 electoral votes that decided the election.
Did you just say that Florida decided that election? I guess you don't know that all the other states that voted for Bush had to be counted, also.
I agree. To go by the popular vote would be a dream for California which has one of the largest populations in the nation, small states would lose their voting voice altogether because candidates would spend all their time appealing to California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania. These states would rule over the rest of the country. Is that what people want? I know I don't.
Are you saying that small states have voice now? With the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire, they don't have any voice either.
The difference is that, today, we have a system where people's effective representation is badly skewed in a weird way. Right now, residents of Iowa matter a lot more than residents any other similar small state. With six months to the primary elections, all major republican contenders are already busy knocking on doors and holding speeches in every small town in Iowa. But I can guarantee you that none of them will make more than one or two perfunctory visits to neighboring Nebraska and South Dakota. Why? Because Iowans matter and Nebraskans don't.
In a popular-vote election, candidates would pay a lot of attention to large states - true - but they won't be able to afford to ignore small states either. Even South Dakota with its 400,000 voters can matter in a close election.
Quote:
Btw, California wasn't too pleased when the "popular vote" came out against gay marriage, so they nulled the popular vote and went over the people's decision to take their agenda to gay-friendly courts. That's basically what California wants to do to the rest of the country.
That was the perfect example of "preventing majority of trampling over the right of the minority". The majority went and voted against gay marriage. But, as it happened, the amendment turned out to be unconstitutional. Framers intentions: fulfilled.
If Al Gore would have won his home state of Tenn in 2000 then FL would have never been an issue...Just sayin
I don't think it matters if a candidate wins his home state or not. I don't understand why people bring that up. Do you really think a liberal candidate from Utah could ever win in Utah, or that a conservative candidate from Massachusetts could ever win in Massachusetts?
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,002 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
I mean 'push'--LOL.
This is looonngggg overdue.
My favorite line in this article, "States shouldn't be electing presidents. Citizens should be."
Indeed.
I absolutely disagree and believe you haven't thought this through.
I live in Colorado and yes, once the BTurds in California who have repeatedly passed legislation to support hedonistic and irresponsible lifestyles pass such legislation you can expect to see more rural areas such as Colorado raped.
California would absolutely use their populace to vote for politicians who would rob us of our water.
This is a union of individual states. The electoral college is a fair balance between states and people. Direct democracy is used in voting for our representatives, not the leader of the nation
I agree.
When I was a kid I couldn't grasp why we used the Electoral College of voting method.
Now I understand it and would want nothing nut.
States vote within themselves and the results within that State represent their vote in choosing a President as a State, as well it should be.
The popular vote mindset is for those that will not accept the results within their State.
I believe the same group does not grasp the State sovereignty concept either.
On the contrary, it is the current system that disenfranchises the majority of the country. In case you haven't noticed, you are ALREADY disenfranchised, because your vote, as a Californian, does not mean squat in presidential elections.
The president is effectively elected by Ohio and Florida, that is wrong and that has to end.
I don't think it matters if a candidate wins his home state or not. I don't understand why people bring that up. Do you really think a liberal candidate from Utah could ever win in Utah, or that a conservative candidate from Massachusetts could ever win in Massachusetts?
I was just stating a fact, pointing out the obvious that's all.
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.
