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 was thinking about this today. im in CA and my vote doesnt count because im repub.
i get why we have the EC, so population doesnt deprive other states influence.
but why not at least ascribe the percentage of the electoral votes as they apply. example: CA has 55 ECV. if 70% vote dem, then 38 of the electorate votes are dem, and the remainder republican.
The idea of fairness in presidential elections was the purpose of Electoral College.
Actually, the end of fair elections with the electoral college ended in 1812 when gerrymandering started.
To understand how evil gerrymandering is, you have to live in a red state....
Read about Amendment 3 that's being voted on in Missouri on Tuesday.
Missouri, a red state, is proposing replacing non partisan state demographer with a commission selected by the governor....
I'm voting NO on this amendment.
I live in Arizona, a formerly red state, now allegedly turning purple because of the unfortunate migration of Californians running from high taxes, crumbling infrastructure, insane real estate prices and state government overreach. But many of them will likely keep voting demonic.
I fully understand the evil of gerrymandering. My LD was solid red for 30 plus years until it was hijacked via gerrymandering demonics. So I have no effective representation in the state legislature or the congress. The republicans challenged it in court but lost.
We need the electoral college, flawed as it is needs to stay in place. If we lost it we'd turn into a permanent one party country run by demonics.
The electoral college has worked well for 200 years. The felonious anointed one, Hillary Clinton lost and now the Marxist progressives want to change the rules. We don't need to change it.
what we should do is like a lot of European countries. Like 6 parties, no majority. 2 or 3 of them have to get together to drive the direction of the country and ignore the other parties.
We just need a constitutional amendment first. 38 states have to pass those, right?
No. California and New York don't get to make the decisions for the other forty eight states because they have a lot of people in them.
Why do you think they would dominate? After all, Trump got 4.4 million votes vs's Clintons 8.4 million from California. Now keep in mind-thats in a state where those folks KNOW that their vote for president doesn't matter. And he STILL got 1/3 of the vote. Imagine if folks there knew their vote would matter.
No. It's been there for 250 years and any attempt to remove it will not go over well, to put it mildly. It's another naked attempt by the Dems to sway elections their way when all else fails, alongside the plans of adding DC and PR, the crazy idea of allowing non-citizens to vote, and the incessant cries of gerrymandering and voter suppression for requiring a fricking id to vote. The founding fathers were geniuses.
i was thinking about this today. im in CA and my vote doesnt count because im repub.
i get why we have the EC, so population doesnt deprive other states influence.
but why not at least ascribe the percentage of the electoral votes as they apply. example: CA has 55 ECV. if 70% vote dem, then 38 of the electorate votes are dem, and the remainder republican.
then at least people in all states feel heard.
I think then who every won the popular vote would win the most electoral votes, making it a popular vote.
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.