ELECTORAL COLLEGE
-
actually, I have to think about that. Offhand, I think it's a great idea - gets rid of the influence of the mega-populated
giant cities like NY, Chicago, etc.
-
After further reading, I found that the Electoral College is based off of both the House and Senate numbers, but I did find another interesting idea from the Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2013/should-we-reform-electoral-college
-
-
It's great just how it is.
It's great just how it is.
I agree but I am very much against the democrat party and the electoral college has cost them two elections in the last 16 years. If the shoe were on the other foot and the republicans were winning the popular vote and losing in the electoral college it would be hard to resist not wanting to change it.
Because it is almost impossible to do away with the electoral college some democrat states are trying to get around it by signing on to an electoral college compact to give the electors to the winner of the popular vote. The article I read talked about how this would benefit all the states
...I love it when they try to insult our intelligence...there is a reason only blue states have signed on to this. -
I guess it really depends on whose ox is being al gored.
But beyond that apart from political allegiance it really doesn't seem right but New York Chicago and Los Angeles should run the entire country.
Look at the tiny blue splotches on the map interspersed among the red.
WSS
-
The day 3/4 of states agree to be nothing more than California's bitch will never come.
The day 3/4 of states agree to be nothing more than California's bitch will never come.
His proposal (the same proposal many others on here have made) would weaken California...
-
I think it's a good idea. But you'll just get some combination of
"Stupid liberal!"
"We can't ever change the Constitution!"
"You'll never get the votes!"
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
"scary dark people".
-
I think it's a good idea. But you'll just get some combination of
"Stupid liberal!"
"We can't ever change the Constitution!"
"You'll never get the votes!"
I think it's a good idea. But you'll just get some combination of
"Stupid liberal!"
"We can't ever change the Constitution!"
"You'll never get the votes!"
Skeptics Realists.
-
If it's a discussion of what should theoretically happen, and what would be the best case scenario. That discussion. Saying "well you won't get the votes" adds nothing.
I get what you attempted to do, but this doesn't compare to the religion discussion. Here we're saying even if it can never happen, what would be best. Unless you want to preface your Bible discussion with "I know this could never happen, but..."
-
So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Whoever wins the electoral college loves the electoral college.
-
So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?
WSS
So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?
WSS
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
-
So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?
WSS
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
Electoral votes are distributed by population.
So if they were equally portioned with no winner take all states the election would be primarily by population right?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Whoever wins the electoral college loves the electoral college.
Yup
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082
-
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
Electoral votes are distributed by population.
So if they were equally portioned with no winner take all states the election would be primarily by population right?
WSS
Electoral votes are distributed by population.
So if they were equally portioned with no winner take all states the election would be primarily by population right?
WSS
Not entirely. Each state has a base value of votes from the Senate. That makes smaller states worth more than their percentage of the population.
It would be more popular vote based than it is now, but not be entirely popular vote. There'd also be no "locks". A Rep could campaign in Cali and walk away with something.
-
I have never once dissed the electoral college, win or lose. and two clinton and obamao terms were losses.
-
So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?
WSS
-
So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?
WSS
So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?
WSS
Basically, ya.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better ๐
Register Login