Do you favor it?
What are some of the downsides to this?
Do you favor it?
What are some of the downsides to this?
I think it better represents us. I for one do not like that our votes got lumped in with those mentally insane people to our north.
One of those advantages is that States like New York or California which actually do have conservative voters will not just be "take away" states, voters in the minority (not ethnic minorities, but idealistic minority) would actually be enticed to get out and vote, because their vote now would matter. However I believe that in order for it to work, it should be implemented nationwide.Quote:
I think it better represents us. I for one do not like that our votes got lumped in with those mentally insane people to our north.
Overall, I'm in favor of the EC. The idea of tying the EC votes to congressional district is pretty interesting, though. It might take away a lot of the influence of large, urban areas that are currently dominated by democrats in a lot of states...maybe even CO. On the other hand, I suppose it could work the other way, too. At first glance I'd probably be in favor.
It would be a better representation of the people living there, but I am curious what that would have meant for the previous election since O still won the popular vote.
given the gerrymandering of districts I'd be against it. At least lumped by state the party in power cannot redraw lines to their advantage
^This.Quote:
Originally Posted by merl
And the fact that I trust our founding fathers more than any modern politician. If they believed the EC was the fairest way to run an election, than by God that's all I needed to know.
It would get rid of 'battleground states', Texas would be in play for the Democrats, and it would make President's get elected without a majority of the popular vote. I read somewhere that if some blue states (PA, WY, VA) did this then Mitt Romney would have won the election even though he lost the popular vote by 5 million.
Would everyone here be OK with Hillary winning in 2016 and only getting 48% of the popular vote against a Christie/Paul 51% (roughly 5 million voters)? In the long term, I cannot see how this is a good idea.
^ this. Although it would mean that we wouldn't be inundated with campaigning each election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
We already do not follow the founding fathers intent on the electoral college and presidential voting. The original system was changed many moons ago to what it is now. Also remember, Bush was elected without winning the popular vote as well. All things aside, allowing the electoral votes to go by district, and legalizing the electorate to vote how they want, would be closer in line to what the authors intent was.