Why We Have An Electoral College (voting, wage, thought, liberals)
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.
My reply to another thread is exactly how I feel, in response to yours. Just a copy:
It seemed to me Trump's win was an anomaly to a certain degree. There were enough voters who wanted someone other than a career politician, even if that person happened to be Donald Trump.
His slogan to "put America first" was very powerful with many people since the previous administration didn't seem to put much emphasis on that at all. And I'm not sure the DNC understands the power of that yet when it comes to elections. They don't appear to.
Trump's effectiveness in office is fiercely debated by both political parties. He certainly found out it was a lot harder to get things done than he imagined. And some issues are MUCH more complicated to solve than he realized, like Healthcare.
I might doubt his chances of being elected again, if the DNC had chosen a better opponent. I think a lot of people might look at sleepy Joe's age and apparent signs of dementia and think, "This guy might not even last through the first year". So his VP pick will be very important in my opinion. It could make or break his chances.
My reply to another thread is exactly how I feel, in response to yours. Just a copy:
It seemed to me Trump's win was an anomaly to a certain degree. There were enough voters who wanted someone other than a career politician, even if that person happened to be Donald Trump.
His slogan to "put America first" was very powerful with many people since the previous administration didn't seem to put much emphasis on that at all. And I'm not sure the DNC understands the power of that yet when it comes to elections. They don't appear to.
Trump's effectiveness in office is fiercely debated by both political parties. He certainly found out it was a lot harder to get things done than he imagined. And some issues are MUCH more complicated to solve than he realized, like Healthcare.
I might doubt his chances of being elected again, if the DNC had chosen a better opponent. I think a lot of people might look at sleepy Joe's age and apparent signs of dementia and think, "This guy might not even last through the first year". So his VP pick will be very important in my opinion. It could make or break his chances.
I think you vastly underestimate America's tRump fatigue.
Even before his disastrous mismanagement of the pandemic and its accompanying economic sledgehammer, tRump was in danger of losing. The energy among the majority of the public who oppose him was high then.
It's only increased in recent months and will continue to do so as the economy falters.
The electoral college exists so slave states could have an outsized influence and not be overruled for their unethical practices by the free states. Now it exists so people living in the backward parts of the country can have an outsized influence over those who want to move the country forward. In other words, not much has changed since the 18th century.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50653
As I understand it, the electoral collage was designed by the founders to deal with the problem of polling each citizen for their vote in a timely manner.
That's no longer a problem.
It's time for one person, one vote, and do away with this electoral college because the problem of counting individual votes is over. We can now do it effectively.
Why should the rural areas be allowed to oppress the urban areas?
The urban areas shouldn't oppress the rural areas either.
The only fair way to do it is one person one vote.
Throw everybody's vote into one big national hat and see who wins.
So California and New York will decide our elections from here on out
And Texas and Florida. Why not? We're all Americans. I used to live in California and now I live in Ohio. It's asinine my vote counts much more in one state than the other. Even more asinine that a vote in Wyoming counts 30-50 times that of a vote from California or Texas.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballkick
Why shouldn't Montana have equal representation.
It does have over a million people
Montana has MORE than equal representation. You have 2 senate seats, which every state has, and you have a very small population.
You have the same exact voice in the senate as California, New York, Texas, and Florida, although you have a very tiny population of voters compared to those states. I really can't IMAGINE why you are complaining that you don't have equal representation. You have excessive reputation, compared to the rest of the people.
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.
