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.
Yep...that is the reason it was created in the first place...we don't need or want to have this entire country run by the five most populous states/cities...
The article explains very well why it will not change. The smaller states are not going to give up their only chance at influence.
But in the end the argument is a fallacy. Here in WV my vote means next to nothing. Romney will win easily so it really matters none who I vote for.
My neighbor's vote just across the river in Ohio will have far more influence in the election.
No it won't.
Romney will carry West Virginia by more than one vote, and Obama will carry Ohio by more than one vote. Your vote will not change the outcome of the election. Neither will the vote of any single voter in West Virginia or Ohio.
But if you're really fixated on how much of the winning margin a single vote occupies, if 2012 is roughly like 2008 then West Virginia will be closer than Ohio on a per vote basis. In 2008, John McCain won West Virginia by 94k votes. Barack Obama won Ohio by 262k votes. Your single WV vote (assuming you voted in WV in 2008) was a larger portion of the difference than any OH vote.
Romney will carry West Virginia by more than one vote, and Obama will carry Ohio by more than one vote. Your vote will not change the outcome of the election. Neither will the vote of any single voter in West Virginia or Ohio.
The politicians will work far harder for the vote in Ohio than they will in WV. They will make Ohio all sorts of promises (even if they don't actually follow through). They will make many stops in Ohio.
Quote:
But if you're really fixated on how much of the winning margin a single vote occupies, if 2012 is roughly like 2008 then West Virginia will be closer than Ohio on a per vote basis. In 2008, John McCain won West Virginia by 94k votes. Barack Obama won Ohio by 262k votes. Your single WV vote (assuming you voted in WV in 2008) was a larger portion of the difference than any OH vote.
The article explains very well why it will not change. The smaller states are not going to give up their only chance at influence.
But in the end the argument is a fallacy. Here in WV my vote means next to nothing. Romney will win easily so it really matters none who I vote for.
My neighbor's vote just across the river in Ohio will have far more influence in the election.
Yep. I live in Ohio about a mile from Parkersburg. I turn on a Huntington/Charleston tv station on and don't see many ads for Romney or Obama. Turn on Columbus and I'm bombarded.
I've been watching a lot of Charleston tv lately. lols.
yep. I live in ohio about a mile from parkersburg. I turn on a huntington/charleston tv station on and don't see many ads for romney or obama. Turn on columbus and i'm bombarded.
I've been watching a lot of charleston tv lately. Lols.
The electoral vote concept is wonderful. A perfect way to give small states a tad more leverage.
On the other hand, without the Electoral College maybe we would now be recovering from the high-water mark of progressive policies that President Gore would have inflicted on us--instead of waiting for the damage of Obama to become evident to a majority of us.
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.
