Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    22,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by debo View Post
    While I'm ok with that in principle, states like Illinois would **** that up dramatically. It's not inconceivable that (just because this is the state's politics) the candidate with the popular vote would receive far fewer electoral votes than another candidate.

    The electoral college is a joke, but reassigning electoral votes doesn't really solve its problem.

    To me, with how connected the US is because of the internet/media, there's no reason to not have a pure popular vote decide the national elections.
    Because a popular vote would screw over the people in places with very little population. The electoral college gives those **** states with 500,000 people in them a say. In a popular vote scenario, candidates would only concentrate their campaigning in places like NYC or LA or Chicago. They'd have no reason to bother with rural America.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,331
    vCash
    1500
    It is easy for me to point out that this is caused by the gerrymandering that accompanied the huge GOP gains in the 2010 election but sadly I don't have any remedies that I can guarantee keep the power of elected officials to determine the election of other officials. No matter what someone is going to have something to gain by deciding congressional districts and its a mighty power to wield which will bring with it the temptation to sway the votes of the people into one electoral outcome or the other. The GOP has shown us why its so dangerous. Obama won the popular vote of Pennsylvania by (I think 5%) yet under the scheme the GOP wanted to put into place Romney could have gotten 75% of the electoral vote. Now you can oppose Obama and/or support Romney all you want but if you think that someone winning more than 50% of the popular vote should only get 25% of the electoral vote, then you are bias beyond all hope.

    To prove my point, I want to know if you all think that Texas should have been forced to give Obama 12 of their 38 electoral votes because 12 of their representatives out of the 38 (including Senators) are Democrats.
    Last edited by dbroncos78087; 01-19-2013 at 11:06 AM.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Castle Grayskull
    Posts
    2,119
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ccugrad1 View Post
    I think the Electoral College should be changed! We hear time and time again that "every vote counts," but deep down, does it? If you are running for President, why would you waste any time campaigning in states that are only going to give you 3 or 4 electoral votes? It isn't like those votes are going to decide the election.

    Plus, a lot of states are pretty much decided before the election even takes place. Obama knew before the election began that he was getting at least 104 electoral votes because California, New York, and Illinois are traditionally Democratic states. Same with Romney- He knew he was getting most of the South and Midwest because they are all traditionally Republican.

    And the main reason I don't like the electoral college is because you could win like 12-15 states and you are at 270.
    Those areas will see even less campaign attention in a popular vote system. The electoral process gives those states a chance to have a larger effect on the outcome. If it's a popular votes system, the candidates will focus on big cities and areas with high population densities. It would become a very urban election.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,331
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ShockerArt View Post
    Those areas will see even less campaign attention in a popular vote system. The electoral process gives those states a chance to have a larger effect on the outcome. If it's a popular votes system, the candidates will focus on big cities and areas with high population densities. It would become a very urban election.
    I actually agree with you. All switching to a popular vote will do is ensure candidates spend their time in large cities where more people live. Its a numbers game and the rural areas/states are always going to be worth less (please don't read as worthless).
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,620
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    There's a lot that needs to be changed in our voting process......this isn't one of those things.
    If the whole country did it I think it would be great.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,620
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I actually agree with you. All switching to a popular vote will do is ensure candidates spend their time in large cities where more people live. Its a numbers game and the rural areas/states are always going to be worth less (please don't read as worthless).
    So the answer is states that have a high proportion of one group or another get ignored? This is silly politicians will go where they can have the biggest impact on the election, just like they do now, for some this will mean campaigning in rural areas. Really shouldn't where more people live get more attention anyway?

    On top of this what the hell does it matter if the candidates come through a town.... we have this thing. It's called the internet or something like that where people can read stuff and watch stuff. I've never seen a presidential candidate, this doesn't make me incapable of voting for the president. This argument is ridiculous.
    Last edited by flips333; 01-19-2013 at 12:15 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,331
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    So the answer is states that have a high proportion of one group or another get ignored? This is silly politicians will go where they can have the biggest impact on the election, just like they do now, for some this will mean campaigning in rural areas. Really shouldn't where more people live get more attention anyway?

    On top of this what the hell does it matter if the candidates come through a town.... we have this thing. It's called the internet or something like that where people can read stuff and watch stuff. I've never seen a presidential candidate, this doesn't make me incapable of voting for the president. This argument is ridiculous.
    Well if you have $30M to spend on your election, then you are going to spend it where you will get the greatest electoral gains. I think it would lead to a reversing of the trend we have now. You will see battle ground cities instead of states. The kinds of cities that have massive populations will be the new targets as opposed to the states.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,620
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Well if you have $30M to spend on your election, then you are going to spend it where you will get the greatest electoral gains. I think it would lead to a reversing of the trend we have now. You will see battle ground cities instead of states. The kinds of cities that have massive populations will be the new targets as opposed to the states.
    There would still be little point to a conservative going to chicago or new york. Or a Dem going to Houston.

    But regardless... we have computers, and satilight TV, Radios and newspapers. What does it actually matter where the advertising dollars go? Shouldn't the election be about what the people running say and do... They don't need to be in my proximity for me to know that. This is just one of those arguments you heard repeated over and over and it becomes rote. What is the actual difference if the presidential candidates are forced to speak to the American people from bunkers in an undisclosed location? It's just not that important where they physically are.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    St. Simon's Island
    Posts
    6,660
    vCash
    1500
    The electoral college does give power to rural, lowly-populated areas, at least more than a popular vote system would give them.

    Let's take Montana for example: there are currently 998,199 people living in Montana (Jul 2011), and there are 313,914,040 people in the United States. By population, Montana makes up 0.0032 percent of the U.S. In the Electoral College, however, Montana has 3 votes out of 538 total, which makes up 0.0056 percent of the total votes. One of the main arguments against the EC is that states with a smaller population have little say, but as evidenced by the Montana example they have more say.

    In giving more power to these states, though, the EC also takes away some value from larger states. California, for example, makes up almost exactly 12% of the nation's population, while in the EC it only makes up a little over 10%.

    So, like others have said in the thread, the Electoral College is a good thing and does not need to be removed.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    22,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    There would still be little point to a conservative going to chicago or new york. Or a Dem going to Houston.

    But regardless... we have computers, and satilight TV, Radios and newspapers. What does it actually matter where the advertising dollars go? Shouldn't the election be about what the people running say and do... They don't need to be in my proximity for me to know that. This is just one of those arguments you heard repeated over and over and it becomes rote. What is the actual difference if the presidential candidates are forced to speak to the American people from bunkers in an undisclosed location? It's just not that important where they physically are.
    A presidential candidate won't bother to help the needs of people in rural American when they only need the votes of the populated areas. Why would they care about the small farmers in the Midwest when their votes mean nothing?

    If I only need 150,000,001 vote and that many people live in cities, what would be my reason to give a rats *** about the needs of the 149,999,999 other people if I don't need their vote to win? (obviously the numbers are off, but it's the idea.)

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    42,834
    vCash
    7100
    Quote Originally Posted by debo View Post
    While I'm ok with that in principle, states like Illinois would **** that up dramatically. It's not inconceivable that (just because this is the state's politics) the candidate with the popular vote would receive far fewer electoral votes than another candidate.

    The electoral college is a joke, but reassigning electoral votes doesn't really solve its problem.

    To me, with how connected the US is because of the internet/media, there's no reason to not have a pure popular vote decide the national elections.
    I'm confused, how exactly would Illinois **** that up?

    And I should clarify what my proposition was. Count electoral votes by Congressional district, plus whoever wins the popular vote of the entire state gets 2 electoral votes. Is this a perfect system? Not really, but I think it's probably the best things states can do. Moving to a pure popular vote system creates as many problems as it solves.





  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,620
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nymetsrule View Post
    A presidential candidate won't bother to help the needs of people in rural American when they only need the votes of the populated areas. Why would they care about the small farmers in the Midwest when their votes mean nothing?

    If I only need 150,000,001 vote and that many people live in cities, what would be my reason to give a rats *** about the needs of the 149,999,999 other people if I don't need their vote to win? (obviously the numbers are off, but it's the idea.)
    Because that is just silly and unrealistic. A huge % of people live in rural areas... Is a presidential candidate just going to say no that's fine you take 30% of the population without a fight. One thing you might have noticed from the last election is that you can't just ignore a significant % of the population (in this case hispanics, which is Much lower than the % of rural voters) and win. Politicians will still pander to every group imaginable. You are not going to pick up all the city voters or all the country voters, or all the suburban voters and win that way, you still have to battle on each front.

    Virginia was a battle ground state as was Colorado and Florida... Did they focus all their attention on the urban areas of those states? OF COURSE NOT. That would be DUMB.
    Last edited by flips333; 01-19-2013 at 02:51 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    St. Simon's Island
    Posts
    6,660
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Because that is just silly and unrealistic. A huge % of people live in rural areas... Is a presidential candidate just going to say no that's fine you take 30% of the population without a fight. One thing you might have noticed from the last election is that you can't just ignore a significant % of the population (in this case hispanics, which is Much lower than the % of rural voters) and win. Politicians will still pander to every group imaginable. You are not going to pick up all the city voters or all the country voters, or all the suburban voters and win that way, you still have to battle on each front.
    About 20% of America live in rural areas, and about 17% of America is Hispanic.
    Last edited by Fly; 01-19-2013 at 02:53 PM.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,620
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly View Post
    About 20% of America live in rural areas, and about 17% of America is Hispanic.
    Neither of which can be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,331
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly View Post
    About 20% of America live in rural areas, and about 17% of America is Hispanic.
    The GOP constantly ignores the Hispanic community and yet controls 30 state governorships, mostly in the areas where Hispanics come to this country.

    The Democrats (by and large) ignore rural areas and want to write them off as "a different America" (I know I do), yet they control the Presidency and a majority in the US Senate.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •