while I agree, no democrat on earth would ever agree to this because it gives states such at ND and MT far MORE power per vote than the highly populace states.
I can't prove it and don't have any facts, it's just my opinion. In order to have facts you'd have to get the non voters to vote in a poll, ha! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think Donald did excellent last night. He showed he isn't going to change just to bend to the establishment. What I did think was funny is Republicians always say you can see a Democrat attact from a mile away...they always says Republicans hate women, Social Security, minorities. Isn't it funny that the host of the debate targeted questions to the ones they wanted to blackball using questions slanted towards these topics? If Donald has enough influence and support that if he went independent to effect the election the Republican Party need to give him more support because he obviously has hit a nerve neither party have been able to hit in years!
That problem is handled rather nicely for congress but not president Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
should HI have the same voting power as CA? I don't think so, but we also don't want to disenfranchise entire states because their votes will never offset NY or LA. A hybrid popular and Electoral would provide the benefits of both ways.
I think this will be one of the more interesting elections as of late. It will be a defining moment for America Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Each state also gets an electoral vote for each Seanator as well the number of congress seats which is determined by population. Each state, regardless of population has exactly two senators. Therefore, the electoral college gives the small states a little more weighted average ( not much much but some) than just by their population alone. The popular vote is not a good thing for rural america and small states.
yup. and because it will take an amendment to the constitution to change it, well, it aint gonna happen precisely because those small states still want to have at least SOME say. it would require 38 states to ratify it, not ever going to happen.
A certain large portion of voters are already disenfranchised because big pop states overrule a voters vote in a small pop state. People need to stop thinking in terms of individual vote, that can be expressed through voting for state reps and congresspeople. A national election should be focused not on individual votes but on the voice of each state. In a presidential election? Absolutely...why not? A president should represent each and every state equally on a national and global level. What is completely asinine is having CA and FL choosing a president that doesn't give a damn about the flyover states. Population and individual votes needs to be represented by elected officials in the house of representatives and the senate...not the POTUS.
Trump told that he he huge sums of money to both side to get favors in return and telling everyone who would listen how much these people are bought and sold.... Does anyone think as president he has any chance of either side will work with him in the house or senate?
Trump can't win, because those who believe in the good book can't vote for an adulterer and some who has been divorced. Plus Bernie is going going to beat Hillary. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
