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.
It's the American way to have people decide their leaders. Why should the minority rural areas outweigh high population metropolitan areas? Already low population states have disproportionally more EC votes since they have two senators regardless of the population in the state.
The minority rural areas NEVER outweigh high population metropolitan areas. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.
But the minority rural areas are still a part of this country, and deserve to be included in the conversation that is an election.
Just so we are clear here. While I don’t like ANY tinkering with the Electoral College, the plans we are talking about
Votes going to the congressional district is NOT NEW and used by states that are NOT Republican dominated.
In both cases Nebraska and Maine use a system that apportions 1 EC per congressional district, then 2 that go to the state wide winner.
That is the plan we are talking about. It is not a new plan (been in place quite some time in the two states mentioned) and it is not some secret cabal by republicans to hijack elections.
Liberals just now figured out that if this plan was done in certain states, it would have blocked their guy. So now they are scrambling and the liberal media machine is making sure it gets play on message boards.
You guys are yucky.
"Yucky"??? You know what's yucky? This scam...
It is true, the proposed system isn't currently "illegal". But, since it's been confined so far to two states, and smallish ones at that, their hasn't been any noticeable national impact.
But, if the GOp succeeds in spreading it selectively to the large swing states, with the obvious intent of rigging the election, the impact will be nothing less than nullification of the popular vote.
We'll see if, under THAT circumstance, it survives legal and ethical review, and public outrage.
Meanwhile, the plot is being dragged out into the open, for all to see. Much to the GOP's chagrin!
The minority rural areas NEVER outweigh high population metropolitan areas. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.
But the minority rural areas are still a part of this country, and deserve to be included in the conversation that is an election.
They "deserve" more than "one man, one vote"
Okaaaay...
Then, how about, nested of winner take all, breaking down the delegates by PERCENTAGE of popular votes? So that, in a close election like in Virginia, Obama gets seven delegates, Romney six?
Still not sure THAT'S a good idea, but at least it makes some kind of sense, and appears fair. Unlike what the GOP has in mind.
It's the American way to have people decide their leaders. Why should the minority rural areas outweigh high population metropolitan areas? Already low population states have disproportionally more EC votes since they have two senators regardless of the population in the state.
The minority rural areas NEVER outweigh high population metropolitan areas. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.
But the minority rural areas are still a part of this country, and deserve to be included in the conversation that is an election.
Then, how about, nested of winner take all, breaking down the delegates by PERCENTAGE of popular votes? So that, in a close election like in Virginia, Obama gets seven delegates, Romney six?
Still not sure THAT'S a good idea, but at least it makes some kind of sense, and appears fair. Unlike what the GOP has in mind.
One man, one vote is a formula to give urban centers the political advantage. Why? BECAUSE URBAN CENTERS always outnumber RURAL populations.
The point of elections isn't just about who wins.
Ask yourself this, why do elections take so long? After all, it only takes seconds to cast your vote. Right? But elections last for MONTHS. Why? Because they aren't just about what happens when people show up to vote. Elections are when the candidates explain their positions to the people, AND when the PEOPLE explain what the issues are to the candidates.
When URBAN voters are the only voters that matter to determine the outcome of the election, there is no incentive for candidates in the months before election day to have a conversation with RURAL voters. And those RURAL voters are some of the PEOPLE whose lives will be impacted by the policies of the President and the government. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to be a part of the conversation?
One man, one vote is a formula to give urban centers the political advantage. Why? BECAUSE URBAN CENTERS always outnumber RURAL populations.
The point of elections isn't just about who wins.
Ask yourself this, why do elections take so long? After all, it only takes seconds to cast your vote. Right? But elections last for MONTHS. Why? Because they aren't just about what happens when people show up to vote. Elections are when the candidates explain their positions to the people, AND when the PEOPLE explain what the issues are to the candidates.
When URBAN voters are the only voters that matter to determine the outcome of the election, there is no incentive for candidates in the months before election day to have a conversation with RURAL voters. And those RURAL voters are some of the PEOPLE whose lives will be impacted by the policies of the President and the government. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to be a part of the conversation?
Still doesn't negate the fact that places with smaller populations will have greater influence than those places that have larger populations. Should people be penalized because they chose to live in areas with greater potential for employment, etc.?
I think we should just move to deciding based on the popular vote and have done with it.
"The inequality in the weight of votes in the electoral college is...strong. The vote of a Wyoming resident, for example, is worth almost four times the vote of a California resident in the electoral college. Where the number of residents for each elector runs from 165 thousand to a little more than 300 thousand in the ten smallest states, in the ten largest it ranges from 586 thousand in Georgia to 628 thousand in California. The ten smallest states each choose two to three times as many electors as they would if a state's electors were strictly in proportion to its population".
Robert A. Dahl, How Democratic is the American Constitution (Yale University Press, 2002), pp. 81-2.
Still doesn't negate the fact that places with smaller populations will have greater influence than those places that have larger populations. Should people be penalized because they chose to live in areas with greater potential for employment, etc.?
I think we should just move to deciding based on the popular vote and have done with it.
The fact is that places with larger populations DOMINATE the political process. That's the FACT.
Does WYOMING have greater influence than CALIFORNIA?
Does RHODE ISLAND have greater influence than NEW YORK?
LARGER populations DOMINATE the political process. Popular vote simply marginalizes rural populations EVEN MORE than they are ALREADY MARGINALIZED.
Rural populations don't control the elections, do they? They NEVER have. They NEVER will. The miniscule weighting simply gives an incentive to candidates to include rural populations in the conversation. Removing that weighting just means there is even more incentive for the candidates for LEADER of our NATION to ignore a large part of our nation.
Well, if your candidate can't win an election in this economy - better figure out a way to cheat. Repugs are great at that.
You mean like JFK?
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.
You know what's yucky? This scam... 
