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.
Why should a handful of unrepresentative swing states decide the fate of the rest of the country instead?
You just want to focus on the most populated states like California and New York and ignore the rest of the country. Remember you tried that last election? And look where it got you.
I like the electoral college but the only issue is that if you live in a democrat state like California, there's no point in voting if you're a republican. Just like if you live in a republican state like Texas, and there's no point voting if you vote democrat.
I have thought of states splitting electoral votes and having a bunch of individual districts. For example, split california between the coastal areas, high desert, sierras, and the central valley. But then, all of those districts could turn blue and it would defeat the purpose.
The other thing is the districting would be subject to gerrymandering regardless if you talk D or R. Whichever side is the minority will claim the the majority is gaming the system like in the house.
You just want to focus on the most populated states like California and New York and ignore the rest of the country. Remember you tried that last election? And look where it got you.
Some of us prefer to represent human beings, rather than states.
We are a nation that represents 50 states, not people. If you don't like it, you should move to some European country that fits your utopia.
I can say the same about people who complain about the culture and politics of California. They are free to move to another state. Yet many of them would rather stay and whine.
Really the biggest thing wrong with electoral college is not it giving a certain amount of votes to certain states but that it is the biggest thing that reinforces our obviously broken two party system. And it's gotten worse over time. The last third party candidate to make any kind of noise in the electoral college is Ross Perot.
We are a nation that represents 50 states, not people. If you don't like it, you should move to some European country that fits your utopia.
My choice would be the Democratic People's Republic of Korea..That's a democracy by name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
Really the biggest thing wrong with electoral college is not it giving a certain amount of votes to certain states but that it is the biggest thing that reinforces our obviously broken two party system. And it's gotten worse over time. The last third party candidate to make any kind of noise in the electoral college is Ross Perot.
I don't think Ross Perot got any electoral votes.
But the problem with the European approach and for that matter the Israeli approach is that all governments are coalitions. That has several evils. One is that the policies change little from election to election since whoever is at the top of the coalition the swing is the minor parties that enable a coalition to assemble. Another is the ability of the premier or prime minister to blame coalition partners for inaction. And the last one I can think of as I get ready for work is that the ministries are assigned by party. So if the country say votes in a progressive government the minister controlling, for example, foreign affairs might be relatively right wing. And that minister isn't really replaceable at the pleasure of the prime minister since that may force an election.
We are a nation that represents 50 states, not people. If you don't like it, you should move to some European country that fits your utopia.
No, I don't like it. And just because somebody doesn't like the way we certain things in America, doesn't mean they have to leave the country. I don't see that concept in the Constitution either. What I do see in our history is freedom of thought and expression.
It's interesting that you admit and admire that this nation's government does not represent its people.
No, I don't like it. And just because somebody doesn't like the way we certain things in America, doesn't mean they have to leave the country. I don't see that concept in the Constitution either. What I do see in our history is freedom of thought and expression.
I don't like either remarks such as "if you don't like it move to _________" even though I plead guilty to making them. Those remarks are justified only where the person in question presents, say, Cuba or North Korea as being a paradise of some kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
It's interesting that you admit and admire that this nation's government does not represent its people.
Now that's a bit rich. While the "federal model" may need some tweaking do to the knitting together of the nation by highways and relatively low-cost air travel we are still built on a dual-sovereignty model. One which should not be thrown out lightly.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted
Thus the President of the Senate counts the already-certified Electoral College votes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Baustian
The Florida supreme court was supposed to ensure that the Florida election laws were fairly enforced -- not to alter those laws by authorizing partial recounts in some counties but not in others. If the Florida court had been doing its job properly, the SCOTUS probably would have let a statewide recount go forward, and the US Senate probably would have waited for that recount before certifying the election.
I am not sure how much flexibility there is to extend the certification date.
Now that's a bit rich. While the "federal model" may need some tweaking do to the knitting together of the nation by highways and relatively low-cost air travel we are still built on a dual-sovereignty model. One which should not be thrown out lightly.
I'm talking about what the other poster wrote.
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.
Those remarks are justified only where the person in question presents, say, Cuba or North Korea as being a paradise of some kind.
