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.
I'm not frustrated, as I don't vote in US elections.
I just find it a interesting subject. The idea that a system would seek to dilute/enhance the individual's voting power, is an odd one to me.
It's a pathetically outdated system and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. The becoming more and more arse-backwards USA cannot even get rid of daylight savings.
It's a pathetically outdated system and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. The becoming more and more arse-backwards USA cannot even get rid of daylight savings.
The founding fathers wanted to ensure that 5 or 6 high population states didn't elect our President every election.
The fact that it upsets you this much proves that it's needed because you'd have no problem with just a few states bulldozing the other 40+ states every time there was a national election. We are a nation of equal states, that's a fundamentally important feature of our constitutional republic.
The founding fathers wanted to ensure that 5 or 6 high population states didn't elect our President every election.
The fact that it upsets you this much proves that it's needed because you'd have no problem with just a few states bulldozing the other 40+ states every time there was a national election. We are a nation of equal states, that's a fundamentally important feature of our constitutional republic.
Bingo. Their wisdom in devising this wonderful system was incredible.
It's a pathetically outdated system and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. The becoming more and more arse-backwards USA cannot even get rid of daylight savings.
"Pathetically outdated?"
So you think the most populous 5-6 states should decide the presidential elections?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would achieve the same effect without abolishing the states (though in the current political climate, there's about zero chance that it'll get enough states for it to go into effect).
This "movement" would be challenged, I suspect, as millions of voters would be effectively disenfranchised, there votes being declared as having no value. Imagine the cries of outrage if a state's popular vote went to one candidate, but the electors voted for the winner of the nationwide popular vote? Thus, the sovereignty of the State would be nullified, in terms of electing a President.
This is a clever ruse. But it is a violation of the Constitution just the same.
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 seem frustrated with the fact that your choice for President lost. Did you support and vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016?
