If you eliminated Minneapolis and St. Paul Minnesota would be a republican state. It is the lemmings that live near the tall buildings that wreck it for the rest of the state.
Exactly the point to get rid of the electoral college. Standardize the recount procedure and move on with our lives. But no this is politics and America has to make it as complicated as possible Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and yet again...another reason why a vote for a 3rd party is not a waste of a vote, especially if you live in a state that is almost always red or blue. whether or not a 3rd party is involved in the debate process depends on the % of the popular vote from the election before
Agreed. A candidate can win by a slim margin and win 100% of the electoral vote, as we have seen in Florida for example. Allowing 100% of 55 votes from California(for example) to go to one candidate, really shifts the balance in one direction. If 60% of the voters for for candidate A, then candidate A should get 60%of the electorate vote. This would actually help in paving a way for a 3rd party candidate to be a better option.
sorry, I believe you're dead wrong on this. small vote states like, say, montana or north dakota are no longer relevant. candidates no long have to campaign in the swing states at all. they hit a few big cities, that's it. if you remove the small states from the mix you are essentially giving NYC/LA/Chicago even bigger influence over the election. I understand why popular vote tends to be looked at as a better solution, but the removal of voices from small-town america is all that will happen. Houston is the 4th most populace city in the country, it goes Democrat HUGE but there are enough repubican voters to swing it back and balance it out. Chicago on the other hand is so Blue that the rest of the state has to bend over and take whatever they give. I get what the problem is, but the alternative of ditching the EC makes the problem of balance even worse. the simple fact of the matter is that it has only happened 4 times in history where the popular vote winner has lost (only once since the 1800's - Bush v. Gore - and I think we ended up with the right choice on that, despite him being only a marginal president). what compelling argument is there that this is a problem of such magnitude that it warrants this change? edit - a fair read about pros/cons of the EC http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
Electoral votes is based of population, winner of the electoral vote is based off popular vote, why not go to a popular vote? Then the wrong candidate would never win. Problem solved. No states are excluded. No votes are wasted Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
right. you'd have exactly what you have in IL, the big population center setting policy for the rural areas because they simply no longer matter to get elected. and let's face it, the only thing that matters to politicians is getting re-elected.
So? Do people really have to see them in person to know their platform? I also dis agree, nearly half the population lives outside of the 10 most popular states. The campaign is almost a year long, they would still travel. Plus there are the primaries where the would still travel before the nomination Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will say, for as much as I like Trump not being a politician, I have just as much reservation because of his lack of experience. He has less experience as a politician than Obama, and that SHOULD be something to be concerned about. But, that doesn't mean he isn't president worthy. On the things Trump has changed his stance on, he at least has the balls to say he changed his mind and admit he was wrong or explain why he changed his mind. I can far appreciate this over the politicians who stand firm on something stupid that is clearly wrong or not good for America.
Voter turnout is higher where candidates campaign. The candidates would spend all their time trying to get NY, CHI, LA. the Midwest would get almost no attention. straight popular and winner takes all Electoral both have problems, where a combination would balance out and give the benefits of both.
primary candidates are always far different than the general election candidates, during the primary the run to the far side of their constituency and once nominated they spring back to the center in order to win elections. fringe candidates don't win general elections. but fringe candidates can often do exceedingly well in primaries. but still. as said earlier, only 1 time since the 1800's has it happened, do you have a compelling reason to tear it out?? it has been working just fine and one outlier in modern times, in my eyes, is not a compelling reason to change it. if we used that as solid logic the gun laws in this country would be drastically different since those mass shooting are the outliers, not the norm.
I want to tear it out because I think there are many people who don't vote because of the electoral college especially in states that always go a certain way.
The problems with the electoral mess can only be fixed by giving each state equal numbers of electoral votes. That way whoever carries the most states wins the election. This would even the playing board and make every state equally important. The big states with high pops should never have the power to implement policy other states do not want on the national level or politicians that are biased towards the big pop states. It's the only actual fair way to enact just representation by a national leader and to secure each states sovereignty from the larger pop states will. Each state being an equal part of the union should be what the nation is all about.
Sure Trump is charismatic and his candor is refreshing to an extent. But he is too thin skinned and creates too many enemies by his cry- baby remarks to anyone who disagrees or challenges him. While I agree the typical politician is too guarded in his comments, you can't go around calling every critic a "loser". His response to Megyn last night tells it all. Yes, the Rosie Odonell comment was funny, but it was still inappropriate IMO. But even if you give him a pass there, how about his comment directly to Megyn about how he might not be nice to her anymore because she was mean to him.....Really? Sounds like a spoiled little brat on the playground who cries when someone kicked a little dirt on him. Carly Fiorina....she is the best choice though I concede she is a long shot.
if you can back that up with statistics I ~might~ be able to get behind that. but i'd need a little proof to make an informed decision. as stated by myself, and others, the loss of a States input into the system could hurt, not sure that would a desirable loss in order to make the other happen.