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.
Not really. It was intended to be a forum where the thinking elite would select a President. That function largely fell to the parties. Since the 1968 debacle the parties have been doing a miserable job. 1968 and the efforts to fix that were a foretaste of what was to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
In 2016 the the margin of victory by HRC in California would have decided the election. We don't need one state deciding who will be the president. So 2016 is a perfect example of why we need the EC. Just because you don't get what you want does not mean you need to start monkeying around with the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orca17
I don't agree with this at all. If the Electoral College were gone, candidates would have to court voters everywhere, not just voters in states that are "in play". Right now, it is pretty pointless for a Republican to campaign in California or a Democrat to campaign in Texas. If every vote truly mattered, candidates would have to appeal to the majority of us, and a candidate would still court votes in a state that his party was likely to lose. Now, those states get little or no attention apart from the national ads that run everywhere.
Elections should be about the will of the majority of the people, not about winning states.
Agreed there with jackwinkelman. The "in play" areas would just shift from Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina to suburbs of major cities in blue states and big cities in red states. If there were no EC the Republicans would spend lots of time campaigning in purple suburban areas of Los Angeles and New York (purple areas in deep blue states) and the Democrats would spend lots of time in the urban cores of Houston, Dallas and New Orleans (purple or blue areas in red states).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
The dem's need to look at how they ended up with HRC as the candidate and the super delegate scam. Perhaps with Sanders they would have won even with the EC system in place.
I agree but Sanders' results would have resemble McGovern's. I think both parties flubbed it big time with HRC and Cheeto.
How can that be? All you have to do is convince more people in your own state to vote for your party's candidate. If you can't convince your own state that your favorite is the best candidate for your own state, why should you be able to force your candidate upon your own state? Those other votes are just as important as yours.
The state preceded the federal government.
Moreover, the state and local governments affect your life much more directly and in many more ways than the federal government.
It's the federal government that is "made up," not the state.
Your post actually betrays the reason the Democrat Party has failed to gain state governorships, state legislatures, and Congress--Democrats don't pay attention to those races.
Instead, Democrats tend to concentrate only on the Presidential race and expect the President to fix the potholes on their streets.
I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I'm talking about one man = one vote. Vote for whoever you want.
Again, you think that by putting words in another poster's mouth, or by twisting words that you win the argument. Well, first of all, there is no winning here. But second, I did compare the state and federal governments being made up entities, I compared human voters and the government. One is a natural being, the other is made up. I value people more. You apparently value government more.
How can that be? All you have to do is convince more people in your own state to vote for your party's candidate. If you can't convince your own state that your favorite is the best candidate for your own state, why should you be able to force your candidate upon your own state? Those other votes are just as important as yours.
You act like it is easy to change a rather safe red state locally like Arizona. Arizona is so bad on the red scale we nearly had a law go in effect today to have tax payers pay for private school vouchers. We also see a lot of the "Our taxes shouldn't go to schools or sport stadiums." This is getting so bad that sports leagues may have to step in to drop their foot. Arizona also nearly launched a "Religious right to discriminate" law.
I'm a Rockefeller Republican and I can't really bow Republican in Arizona. Either the are far too conservative or cronie capitalists. Sadly there aren't enough people with their heads not stuck up their proverbial ***** like me and the poster you replied to that ruins our state by electimg these idiots into office both locally and federally.
Quote:
The state preceded the federal government.
Iff it was one of the 13 colonies that became the first 13 states. 37 states
Quote:
Moreover, the state and local governments affect your life much more directly and in many more ways than the federal government.
Yes and more often they take more rights away than others. Religious right to discriminate anyone?
Quote:
It's the federal government that is "made up," not the state.
I'm gonna have too disagree with you there, both are made up.
Quote:
Your post actually betrays the reason the Democrat Party has failed to gain state governorships, state legislatures, and Congress--Democrats don't pay attention to those races.
Instead, Democrats tend to concentrate only on the Presidential race and expect the President to fix the potholes on their streets.
To be fair Republicans have been powered by the grassroots with the TEA Party and then Trump. Sanders is the closest thing to a Democrat using the grassroots method. Most are using the big tent. Maybe that has changed with the resist movement. We can only hope it continues beyond the healthcare issues.
As an interesting side note since each state can decide how to cast their Electoral College votes you do not actually need a Constitutional amendment to have an election by popular vote. There is currently a pact among states to cast their votes based on the popular vote, it will be enforced if they get to the 270 vote threshold making the Electoral College irrelevant.
With NPV, it wouldn't be essential to convince them.
Other than the National Pact I just mentioned you would need to convince them or many other states like them as it requires 38 states to vote to change it.
You act like it is easy to change a rather safe red state locally like Arizona. Arizona is so bad on the red scale we nearly had a law go in effect today to have tax payers pay for private school vouchers. We also see a lot of the "Our taxes shouldn't go to schools or sport stadiums." This is getting so bad that sports leagues may have to step in to drop their foot. Arizona also nearly launched a "Religious right to discriminate" law.
I'm a Rockefeller Republican and I can't really bow Republican in Arizona. Either the are far too conservative or cronie capitalists. Sadly there aren't enough people with their heads not stuck up their proverbial ***** like me and the poster you replied to that ruins our state by electimg these idiots into office both locally and federally.
California may be rushing off the other side of that plateau just as fast.
People in a democracy get to do that.
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.
