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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,394 posts, read 54,669,661 times
Reputation: 40891
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisanicole1
Democrats are going shoot themselves in the foot with this one. They really do go into an election with an advantage in the electoral college.
Watch electoral college gets scrapped and in 2020 the Republicans win popular vote and the democrats would have won with electoral college ha ha
You are forgetting, there are a LOT of people, both political parties, that don't bother to vote BECAUSE of the electoral college. If you are Democrat, in Alabama, why waste the gas? Conversely, if you are a Republican, in California, why waste the gas?
It's not as easy as you might think. While California has a LOT of people, it doesn't have everyone. To put it in perspective, California has 38.3 million....Texas, number two has 26.5 million....12 million difference....NY and Florida are roughly tied at 19 million a piece.....fully, 102,000,000 live in these 4 states...1/3 the US population.....you are assuming the entire state's populations mentioned would go one way or another.
They won't. Also, for every vote they cast, 2 more are available throughout the rest of the country. It would all come down to voter turnout and with this "sanction" lifted, EVERYONE's vote would count ergo the higher turnout ergo the more fair representation of what the people want.....I'm Republican and I would still like to see a popular vote.
Unlike the Democrats, I can live with the outcomes no matter how much I may, or may not like them. The popular vote is potentially more fair to the entire country.....if they get out to vote.
Okay, here's the answer on "why waste the gas":
First of all, most polling places are within walking distance to where people live. It's one thing that this country has done a fantastic job on - making it very easy to vote.
Second of all, even if you live in a blue state and you're Republican, or you live in a red state and you're Democrat, you can still vote on local issues, you can still vote for state reps, etc. Even if your vote doesn't count towards the Presidential election, you still have a voice in your state. You will notice that we did win the House and the Senate and governances, and a whole slew of other things - that can't be done by people who stay home. In order to make changes, you don't wait until it's time for the big prize, you start locally and work your way up.
It's been done hundreds of times. Just because you disagree doesn't mean the arguments haven't been rehashed over and over and over with the facts being, we aren't going to change.
Nonsense. The electoral college still exists because its the right thing to do. Without it we will have mob rule. The founders of this nation wisely recognized that.
I mean, even if the Electoral College was abolished tomorrow, it still wouldn't make Hillary president. Because the 2016 election was run on the basis of getting electoral votes.
interesting:
Quote:
Clinton leads President-elect Donald Trump by nearly 800,000 votes nationally
and on the other hand,
REPORT: 3 MILLION Votes in Presidential Election Cast by ILLEGAL ALIENS, Non-Citizens
I saw an interview with Priebus where he stated ( I can't rememember exactly) that 15 or 18 states decided the election. WHAT's so great about that system?
What's so great about a system that attempts to keep one group of voters from having too much influence by giving another group of voters too much influence?
One man, one vote. It's long overdue.
California is completely free to change to proportional allotment of their 55 electoral votes. They would become immediately relevant to the national election.
Why don't they do this? Because the Democrats who run that state don't want it.
What if electoral votes are done by county. So if say Florida had 29, the winner of the state would not get all. It would be broken up by county?
I heard it bandied about (BEFORE the election) that assigning one electoral vote to each congressional district, awarding that one electoral vote to the candidate who 'won'/got the most votes within that district, then awarding the two votes represented by the two senators from each state to the winner of the popular vote statewide would almost by definition force the candidates away from a 'swing state strategy' and force them to 'go all over'.
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.
