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 would propose that electoral college votes(and house reps) be switched to be based on voter turnout numbers rather than outright census numbers. After all if you don't care, you don't care right? And puts an end to any vote suppression nonsense and gets parties pushing participation.
so the Dems are going to hit the "racist" angle one more time, and see if it still works.
Hey you - over there - in Texas. You're a racist! And you - Jowel in NC - do you wanna be a racist, or not?
That's the history. You seem to not know it? But defenders call people out for not knowing it while falsely thinking it was about small state vs big state representation?
That was not the case, at all.
But don't feel bad, I was taught it was a small state vs big state thing in my southern elementary school too.
I honestly don't want a D candidate who loses the popular vote to become president, I think that undermines the trust in their leadership of all Americans to some extent, if they couldn't even win the most votes.
Also, 37% of Rs and R leaning independents also support moving to the popular vote.
so the Dems are going to hit the "racist" angle one more time, and see if it still works.
Hey you - over there - in Texas. You're a racist! And you - Jowel in NC - do you wanna be a racist, or not?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Anyway, it's interesting to see which other countries use an electoral college system or some modified system of this (Burma, Burundi, Estonia, India, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu, Vatican City, Botswana, Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, South Africa, and Suriname).
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,585 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timonium
Democrats want to disenfranchise rural voters.
Not surprising. Such a scum party
No, they don't. This is what's happening now with entitled mentality.
Evening the playing field is now called "disenfranchisement".
I'm in the center, and I think it's absurd that central US states with very few voters get two distinct advantages: the same number of senators as very very populous states, and also overrepresentation in the electoral college.
In what was is that at all fair? Why, based on location, do a handful of US voters deserve so much power over other voters?
Yes, it was to keep the non-slave states from outnumbering the slave states. Everybody knows that.
Depends on where someone grew up/went to school and if they've further read our history. I wasn't taught the true history of the electoral college and the 3/5th compromise growing up in the south. Wasn't until I was in a dod run school while my dad was stationed in Germany that I was first exposed to it.
There's a lot of incorrect history taught in schools. But people raised on it just shout "revisionist history!" when exposed to contradictory information.
That's the history. You seem to not know it? But defenders call people out for not knowing it while falsely thinking it was about small state vs big state representation?
That was not the case, at all.
But don't feel bad, I was taught it was a small state vs big state thing in my southern elementary school too.
nono, I'm talking that it's racist today. There is absolutely ZERO racist component to "1 EC vote per Senator + 1 EC vote per Rep".
Unless someone wants to go down the rabbit hole of "it's racist today to want to abolish the EC, since now Blacks have GREATER representation, and you want to get rid of that."
Heck, CA is twice as racist as the country at large. They only have 6% Black population. NC is about 1/2 as racist as the country, and FOUR TIMES less racist than CA, based on % of population that is Black.
OMG, California has 3 of 49 Reps that are Black. How racist is that??!??!?!?!??!??
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,585 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50620
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
None exists, we vote by State.
And those who live in unpopulated states have more power, per person, than those who live in populated states.
There is no rational reason why Nebraska should have greater say per person as California, TWICE. In the senate, and the EC.
We are a UNITED states, not a group of sovereign countries that are located in close proximity to each other, where the case could be made that each country should deserve equal representation.
Completely misses the point. The People don't elect the Executive. The States elect the Executive. That's why the manner of choosing electors was left to the state legislatures. They're free to simply allow the governor to choose, have the legislature vote, or have party heads compete in a sack race on the state house lawn.
The People elect Representatives to be their voice on a national level. The President represents the States in running the day to day operations of the federal government (which are supposed to be few)
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.
