Aside from all of the republic and federal arguments, think about it ... over the span of years we were spared Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as presidents. The electoral college is divinely inspired.
Plus, all the ballot box stuffing in the blue states availed them nothing where the presidential election was concerned.
Aside from all of the republic and federal arguments, think about it ... over the span of years we were spared Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as presidents. The electoral college is divinely inspired.
Plus, all the ballot box stuffing in the blue states availed them nothing where the presidential election was concerned.
Independent of this election and the OP's hyperpartisan nonsense, surely there are actually issues with the electoral college.
My number one problem with it, is that it all but assures that almost no one has their voice heard in elections, the vast majority of states never see or hear from a candidate in person and the candidate never sees or hears their concerns or issues.
So basically election after election, the same states get all the attention and no one else is even paid any attention whatsoever, and this would seem to be unfair to Red and Blue states, conservatives and liberals alike and may contribute to the feeling that government is unresponsive to their concerns.
Again, this has nothing to do with the last election results before you jump on me with how brilliant the founders ****ing were ok!
just an overall observation of the system.
I don't think abolishing the EC would improve this. It would just shift the campaigns more to the large population centers where they spend most of their time anyway.
And if we are concerned about overweighting the power of some states in the EC we ought to do something about the Senate. Every state gets two senators no matter how small its population.
What about modifying it, say going by districts or counties instead to win a State or maybe even dividing them per the vote within a state?
I'm not sure what you mean. You mean that the majority of the districts in a state would decide the outcome for the state? In a few states the electoral votes are allocated according to who won each district, and the 2 extra votes are given to the candidate who won the state. What democrats are essentially complaining about now is the effect of the 2 extra votes, and by extension the fact that we have two houses of Congress. Get rid of the Senate and we will have a much more direct form of democracy and all the hazards attendant to that.
Not if a minimum margin is required to ensure a true mandate of the winner.I don't think abolishing the EC would improve this. It would just shift the campaigns more to the large population centers where they spend most of their time anyway.
What a ridiculously stupid thread.
This is what we get when Lowdown goes off script.
Not if a minimum margin is required to ensure a true mandate of the winner.
Sometimes you have to ask for a lot if you want a lot. The determining factor is whether the lot is deserved.Considering the outcome of the last several presidential elections, that's a lot to ask for.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?