other one Posted December 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,134 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,859 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/3/2016 at 10:35 AM, Out of the Shadows said: I don't really see an issue. We don't let empty land vote, just people. actually that's not true... each state votes for president..... people only vote to tell the state how to vote.... BTW the numbers on the photo are skewed a little, she actually won about 500 and Trump won about 2600.... same principle goes with it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 12, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 12/1/2016 at 3:41 PM, GoldenEagle said: To those who oppose the Electoral College... Let's take the idea of popular majority and how about we apply that to Congress for a moment? If we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish/change the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct then too the distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of office of President. Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College? God bless, GE @Out of the Shadows thoughts on this? God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted December 12, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2016 I do not support an all out popular vote, but I do think there are problems with the EC, the biggest of which is the winner take all so even if the vote is split 50.1% to 49.9%, one candidate gets all the EC votes. What this does is in effect remove the voice of the 49.9%, but even more than that, as a member of a "third party" it makes it basically impossible for a third party to ever be viable. As I said before, the EC is not a perfect system, but I have as yet to come up with a better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 12, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2016 Re: Popular Vote Why should every vote by every citizen matter just the same in every state? I’ve thought about that more… It's really basic math. If every vote mattered just the same then the only states that would matter come election time would be the urban population centers. In other words California (38 Million+), Texas (26 Million+), Florida (19 Million+) and New York (19 million+) as sates with population base would be the centers for campaigns. Truth be told, you’d need to include Illinois (12.5 Million+), Pennsylvania (12.5 Million+), Ohio (11.5 Million+), Georgia (9.5 Million+), Michigan(9.5 Million+), North Carolina (9.5 Million+), New Jersey (9 Million+), Virginia (8 Million+) as states with 8 million + population. This would add up to roughly 184 million people in 12 states. So the other 38 states and half the population would be ignored. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted December 12, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2016 34 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said: Re: Popular Vote Why should every vote by every citizen matter just the same in every state? I’ve thought about that more… It's really basic math. If every vote mattered just the same then the only states that would matter come election time would be the urban population centers. In other words California (38 Million+), Texas (26 Million+), Florida (19 Million+) and New York (19 million+) as sates with population base would be the centers for campaigns. Truth be told, you’d need to include Illinois (12.5 Million+), Pennsylvania (12.5 Million+), Ohio (11.5 Million+), Georgia (9.5 Million+), Michigan(9.5 Million+), North Carolina (9.5 Million+), New Jersey (9 Million+), Virginia (8 Million+) as states with 8 million + population. This would add up to roughly 184 million people in 12 states. So the other 38 states and half the population would be ignored. God bless, GE I think the flaw in this math is that it is assume that a candidate would win the whole state, but if a state like Cali or Ny or Tx could be a close split, then the small states become more important again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts