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.
-National recounts would be a disaster
-people in rural areas would be pretty much left out of the process completely because campaigns would only go to population centers.
-the founders were opposed to the tyranny of the majority
The MIT idea works, because while it does reflect the popular vote more than the all or nothing system, it still has the 2 electoral vote senatorial safeguard built in.
The MIT idea is a disaster. There are 538 votes total. Do the two senate votes go for the leader or the loser? The whole idea is a mess.
I think by taking away EC virtually everything would change.
Imagine the sheer number of people who aren't voting BECAUSE they know their vote doesn't mean a damn thing in their state (solid blue or red). A ton of Republicans in CA are not getting counted, and a ton of Republicans in north eastern states aren't getting counted either. The same falls true in the solid red states for Democrats.
I would 100% rather see one man, one vote. It is the only truly equal representation.
Even better, and I don't think anyone thought of this, the representation of third party candidates. It would allow the independents a real chance. Oh, and this "super delegate" nonsense needs to go as well.
What an ignorant statement! Why does somebody living in NYC have less at stake than somebody with a 1000 acre ranch? What if that NYC resident is an illegal immigrant, a Muslim, a Trans person? The election affects everyone equally, both urban and rural.
Apparently this charming individuals considers some people more human than others.
I think by taking away EC virtually everything would change.
Imagine the sheer number of people who aren't voting BECAUSE they know their vote doesn't mean a damn thing in their state (solid blue or red). A ton of Republicans in CA are not getting counted, and a ton of Republicans in north eastern states aren't getting counted either. The same falls true in the solid red states for Democrats.
I would 100% rather see one man, one vote. It is the only truly equal representation.
Even better, and I don't think anyone thought of this, the representation of third party candidates. It would allow the independents a real chance. Oh, and this "super delegate" nonsense needs to go as well.
One man one vote is not equal representation. Which ever side wins usually doesn't represent the other side. It's a winner take all mentality.
If you want to keep the 270 to win, you'd have to drop any candidate who gets less than say 5 or 10% to avoid a run off or house scenario too often
So in either case in California, Stein and Johnson are out
So recalculate percentages:
65.3% to Clinton:36 evs
34.6% to Trump:19 evs
So that way, third party candidates with actual support, like over 5 or 10%, whatever number you want to use, actually have significant effect..they could send the election to the house. This would have happened with Perot.
Johnson got more than 5% in 11 states and over 10% in none.
I believe there is a "majority" rule in the Constitution, which reflects the 270 to win, so you'd have to go with a minimum % of votes to get electors.
It isn't a mess. It's much better than the current system and if I can figure it out on a spreadsheet in 5 minutes, it's not complicated.
Meme that let's you know that the person who uses it has been indoctrinated with a an exaggerated and paranoid sense of University/PC influence on policy, usually resulting from overexposure to right wing media sources or just being a general old fart.
Wrong. Snowflakes are Leftie idiots that need safe spaces because their get feelings hurt. Which I'm sure the results of this election did (with all of the suicide threats, protests, electoral college complaints, etc). Oh by the way, I'm black, don't watch right wing media, and I'm still in my 20s. Just gonna put that out there in advance.
Apparently this charming individuals considers some people more human than others.
If you want to live under mob rule go somewhere like Venezuela. It has nothing to do with considering some people more human than others. However if you don't own property what make you think you have the right to dictate what I pay in taxes on that property? Same for people on welfare. What right do they have to vote more money out of my pocket so they can get more money in theirs? I work hard for my money while these slobs that game the system do little to nothing.
I think by taking away EC virtually everything would change.
Imagine the sheer number of people who aren't voting BECAUSE they know their vote doesn't mean a damn thing in their state (solid blue or red). A ton of Republicans in CA are not getting counted, and a ton of Republicans in north eastern states aren't getting counted either. The same falls true in the solid red states for Democrats.
I would 100% rather see one man, one vote. It is the only truly equal representation.
Even better, and I don't think anyone thought of this, the representation of third party candidates. It would allow the independents a real chance. Oh, and this "super delegate" nonsense needs to go as well.
So you must think it's equal and fair when 10 individuals decide to gang up on one person?
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.
