Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eliminate the Electoral College

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Both.

    Comment


    • #32
      the latter shouldn't be of concern. you get rid of the fact that a state like Wyoming has 3 votes and you'll only see candidates visiting large states.
      "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
      "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

      Comment


      • #33
        Of course it's a concern. It's absolutely ridiculous that someone else's vote should count three times mine. There's a reason the farmers wouldn't be represented as much - because there aren't as many of them! They get too many subsidies as it is.

        Comment


        • #34
          and candidates will only visit New York, PA, Florida, Texas, and California... they don't need to win any other state.
          "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
          "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

          Comment


          • #35
            Moses:

            I say this because the candidates only campaign in swing states. The rest of the country hardly even matters to them. Bush was going to come to Delaware, but then he was rescheduled or something. Kerry never even made the attempt as far as I know.
            get rid of the electoral college and it won't change that with respect to Delaware... Delaware won't have enough electoral votes to be of concern and candidates will still not go there.
            "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
            "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

            Comment


            • #36
              Of course they do, because there'd be no winner-takes all system. And even if there were, they'd need to win some other states. Besides, I don't really mind if those are the only areas they visit.

              Anyway, I live in Northern Virginia outside DC, so my interests are very well represented in Congress re: federal funding

              Comment


              • #37
                Right now the candidates completely ignore states that are solidly in one camp or the other. Bush will never visit California, and Kerry never Texas. What's the problem with ignoring states?

                So what if smaller states are ignored? People's votes still count as much as someone from NYC.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kuciwalker
                  Of course it's a concern. It's absolutely ridiculous that someone else's vote should count three times mine. There's a reason the farmers wouldn't be represented as much - because there aren't as many of them! They get too many subsidies as it is.

                  There might be some problems with the electoral vote system, but rural voters would be virtually disfranchised if this system was abolished.
                  A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Good! They're already overenfranchised!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      A citizen of California has 4x the power of a citizen of Montana to decide the president.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Not at all.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          You cannot argue against Wikipedia and it's links.

                          You are refuted.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            A citizen of California has 4x the power of a citizen of Montana to decide the president.


                            You have it the other way around. Since electoral votes are apportioned according to the number of members of Congress coming from the state, every state gets 2 extra electoral votes due to its 2 Senators by default. So Montana (with 3 electoral votes) gets 2.89 times the electoral votes per capita that California (with 55 electoral votes) gets.
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              He's referring to the winner-takes-all part of it.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                California is winner take all and Montana is winner take all. I don't see how that makes a difference. What does the number 4 mean in that context?
                                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                                -Bokonon

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X