buddhist
Well-Known Member
As I write this, CNN's website states 80% for Arizona.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the Electoral College anyway?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
I must be looking at different numbers but I heard about something with Arizona too close to call. Weird.
Given what McMullin did in Utah, I'd like to see how a run-off type thing might play out. IOW, you'd have to get say at least 10% of the national vote, to participate in a run off. Then when it's down to the final two candidates, each state votes for that. Granted, all third party people would've probably just sat this one out, so not saying this is a great solution. But I do think if McMullin isn't in Utah race, you could possibly add maybe 100,000 to Trump's overall total, and that assumes 75,000 would just sit it out.
Yet, playing what if game right now is interesting, but doesn't matter. I can think of a few ways Trump's overall popular vote could've been boosted, thus I don't truly agree with his final number, but I DO accept it. I accept that Hillary did win the popular vote. Just as I accept the idea that Trump dominated the electoral college.
Yet, playing what if game right now is interesting, but doesn't matter. I can think of a few ways Trump's overall popular vote could've been boosted, thus I don't truly agree with his final number, but I DO accept it. I accept that Hillary did win the popular vote. Just as I accept the idea that Trump dominated the electoral college.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I thought this was funny sign, but the Dems will say I'm trolling 
. MAGA.
http://offbeat.topix.com/slideshow/.../recirc-endshow/17550////,1478901085,9ep76qld
. MAGA.http://offbeat.topix.com/slideshow/.../recirc-endshow/17550////,1478901085,9ep76qld
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Population clusters are no reason to say votes count differently than "one citizen, one vote." I vote Blue for President, but because I live in a "grey zone," that vote has only counted once.>>I'm positive that if it were the other way around that if Trump won majority and not the electoral I would still question a system where majority voice doesn't matter.<<
I'm positive you would not give me props even if the TRUTH hit you in the face, but that's par for the course in politics and religion.
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9
In Cali, my vote didn't matter for POTUS (except to give me criping rights). As soon as the polls closed, the 55 electoral votes went to Clinton according to CNN ha ha. A friend of mine, who is anti-Trump, voted for Sanders (write-in) in Missouri and Trump won in no time.
And, no, that has absolutely nothing to do with why the EC was developed and established.
I see it as not "misrepresentation", but rather as approximate representation.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
One that is incorrect.
Pbbbbtttttttt!
james bond
Well-Known Member
What it means is that the campaign chairs just focuses on the blue areas during the latter part of the race then. The other thing is someone from your backyard is more likely to win the nomination since a majority would be familiar with this person. For example, let's take Rand Paul, a libertarian (A libertarian would want to keep the EC or else they would have no voice at all.) I am familiar with Rand Paul, but don't really know his politics. I'm assuming you feel this way as well. Thus, if someone like Donald Trump was running against Rand Paul for POTUS, then DT has the advantage. He's from a populous area and so more people know him. Rand Paul might say a lot of things we like and has a silver tongue, but you and I who aren't from his part of the area would still do not trust him. That's a simple example, but I hope you get what I am driving at.
Or let's say Trump and Bernie Sanders (Sanders really had no chance to be nominated because he had few, if any, superdelegates supporting him). Against Trump, he would not be known to people on the west coast. I liked a lot of the things he said and would back him if I was a Dem. I would have to overcome not knowing him as well as to vote for him over Trump.
Without the electoral college, then we may as well disband the multi-party system and just be one nation under one party. It would be too chaotic to nominate bodies, so some kind of EC would be required. I would want to get rid of the superdelegates in the Democratic Party and destroy the power of the super wealthy. One person, one vote for nominees per faction. You take away the EC, then I want to destroy the Democratic Party and the way they operate.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I don't feel that way because I am familiar with his politics.
Unless it happens because a tyrant dissolves them, how could that ever be a such a bad thing? Especially considering that it's the biggest problem our country faces.
Why not having no parties at all?
Just about all of the Western world, and even chunks through the East and Middle/Near East do just fine without. They even have parliaments that aren't based on a winner-take-all system.
If you're going to have a democracy, those are another thing that have to go. "One citizen, one vote." The super delegates are nothing more than party politics and control.
james bond
Well-Known Member
The Bernie Sanders part, I made a mistake. I meant Clinton instead of Trump. That said, I think you got my point we usually vote for those closest to us or most familiar with. I'm okay with you not feeling the same way about Trump as I didn't feel the same way with Clinton despite knowing her for many years. It's like these are people who lived in our neighborhood and grew up with which was my point.
Agreed. I do not want to ruled by a few. I want a voice and that sometimes that voice wins. Then, if I don't get what I want, I can accept it and be together again.
Yes, why not have no parties. However, we'll still have factions. What I want then is a fair delegate system for nomination or EC system. None of this superdelegates crap of the Democrats.
Interesting.
Agreed. That's why I'll fight to keep the EC for now and not get run over by the Democrats who want to abolish the EC.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I guess you didn't get that from watching SNL.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The Republicans were screaming for it (including Trump) in 2012 even though Obama won the popular by several million votes.
Screaming for what? Abolition or keeping?
I don't remember anybody making a big deal out of the issue at all. I wish they would.
Tom
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Getting rid of it. Trump himself called it a "disaster for democracy" then.
From what I can see there is a very sparse population and winning just the big cities isn't enough. All the counties all have a say too, the majority is won by the amount each county gives. For example if Hillary actually lost an entire population of one state the popular vote is easily lost.
Actually, that is just about right. Seeing what is considered "Republicans" in the USA these days, that is hardly surprising or particularly inadequate.
esmith
Veteran Member
I think I take offense to that comment. No I do take offense to that comment.
Frankly, I have no idea of why you would.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
There's the rub...