|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 21:35:50 GMT -5
Win a few more middle America states. Republicans would literally have to win almost every state in country if you went no electoral college while Dems would have to win 2 or 3 and rest of country doesn’t matter. Again the left trying to take the easy no work way out I'm not saying that we should go strictly by popular vote, but a format where electoral votes are split by congressional district (like in Nebraska and Maine), would be more reasonable than a winner-take-all system when Hillary Clinton lost Michigan by less than .25%. I’m not opposed to splitting all states into districts to split votes up so if you win one state you don’t get all it’s votes. I do believe that will lead to more ways to cheat though because process comes a lot bigger. If someone could come up with a good compromise in middle I’m willing to listen but just getting rid of electoral college with no compromised idea in place is wreckless
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 21:38:21 GMT -5
I'm not saying that we should go strictly by popular vote, but a format where electoral votes are split by congressional district (like in Nebraska and Maine), would be more reasonable than a winner-take-all system when Hillary Clinton lost Michigan by less than .25%. I’m not opposed to splitting all states into districts to split votes up so if you win one state you don’t get all it’s votes. I do believe that will lead to more ways to cheat though because process comes a lot bigger. If someone could come up with a good compromise in middle I’m willing to listen but just getting rid of electoral college with no compromised idea in place is wreckless Have to come up with something that’s completely fair to everyone. On another note I also think California is too big to have one governor making all the calls. Maybe that guy that was talking about splitting Cali into three states was on to something. Or if not that atleast have a mayor or each section of state. Northern central and southern
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 8, 2020 21:41:01 GMT -5
I'm not saying that we should go strictly by popular vote, but a format where electoral votes are split by congressional district (like in Nebraska and Maine), would be more reasonable than a winner-take-all system when Hillary Clinton lost Michigan by less than .25%. I’m not opposed to splitting all states into districts to split votes up so if you win one state you don’t get all it’s votes. I do believe that will lead to more ways to cheat though because process comes a lot bigger Excuses, excuses. If you're open to states splitting votes by district, then you implicitly admit that there is something wrong with the current electoral college. Dude, it's already a cheat. You can get over 2 million votes in Michigan and it counts for nothing. Nada. Zilch.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 8, 2020 21:42:33 GMT -5
I’m not opposed to splitting all states into districts to split votes up so if you win one state you don’t get all it’s votes. I do believe that will lead to more ways to cheat though because process comes a lot bigger. If someone could come up with a good compromise in middle I’m willing to listen but just getting rid of electoral college with no compromised idea in place is wreckless Have to come up with something that’s completely fair to everyone And by that you mean to handicap rural areas? Haha.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 8, 2020 21:42:43 GMT -5
How is "one man, one vote" not fair? Every other country in the world does it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 21:44:15 GMT -5
I’m not opposed to splitting all states into districts to split votes up so if you win one state you don’t get all it’s votes. I do believe that will lead to more ways to cheat though because process comes a lot bigger Excuses, excuses. If you're open to states splitting votes by district, then you implicitly admit that there is something wrong with the current electoral college. Dude, it's already a cheat. You can get over 2 million votes in Michigan and it counts for nothing. Nada. Zilch. I didn’t say there was anything wrong. I said I’d be willing to listen. You guys like to twist stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 21:45:00 GMT -5
How is "one man, one vote" not fair? Every other country in the world does it that way. Why would people in certain states even vote if only three states would matter in country. There would only be campaigning in three states and nobody would go to rest of country. They would be ignored
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 8, 2020 21:45:28 GMT -5
How is "one man, one vote" not fair? Every other country in the world does it that way. Why would people in certain states even vote if only three states would matter in country. Nobody's vote would matter more than anybody else's. A person in california would have the exact same vote as a person in wyoming. Also, please explain how 3 states make up 50% of the population.
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 8, 2020 21:46:52 GMT -5
Excuses, excuses. If you're open to states splitting votes by district, then you implicitly admit that there is something wrong with the current electoral college. Dude, it's already a cheat. You can get over 2 million votes in Michigan and it counts for nothing. Nada. Zilch. I didn’t say there was anything wrong. I said I’d be willing to listen. You guys like to twist stuff up. You said you're not opposed to it. If there's nothing wrong with the current electoral college, then why would you not be opposed to splitting votes?
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 21:52:33 GMT -5
I didn’t say there was anything wrong. I said I’d be willing to listen. You guys like to twist stuff up. You said you're not opposed to it. If there's nothing wrong with the current electoral college, then why would you not be opposed to splitting votes? There always could be a possible better way at anything in life. Doesn’t mean I oppose system we have now. If they were able to put together a better system I’d be willing to listen and if they could put a system sectioning states districts the right way and I though it was better then current system I’d be willing to listen. They have to come up with something and present it first to make a decision. I’m not opposed to change. I just have to feel the system is right or better then current one
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 8, 2020 21:54:30 GMT -5
No because we prob have same view on that. That’s not how elections are won and there’s very good reasons why. 3 states would matter. That’s it. It why democrats want to get rid of electoral college And Republicans want to keep the electoral college because they can keep winning elections by getting less votes? Good luck finding the center on that one. 👍 The Electoral College was never really meant to be any kind of consistent way to select a President. Just remember there's nothing requiring what the current states do with winner take all or winning the electoral vote corresponding to won Congressional districts. It was up to the state legislature to decide (like how voting procedures are decided). Some would appoint their electors. They could allow the state governor to appoint electors. Electors could be faithless and allowed to vote as they pleased. But it was really designed to not select a President and then allow Congress to select, although with an odd single vote per state's House delegation.
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:02:35 GMT -5
The first step I believe to all this is getting rid of career politicians and putting term limits on everyone. I know many voters of all parties that agree her. Not all but a lot. The parties stop caring about the people and more about their parties along time ago. This I have had agreement on also from people of different parties. So I don’t know how this would start but we need the government refocused on the people like it’s suppose to be. They are suppose to be representatives of the people but for along time now they have catered more to the party and lining their pockets from special interest groups. That’s all sides
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 8, 2020 22:06:27 GMT -5
And Republicans want to keep the electoral college because they can keep winning elections by getting less votes? Good luck finding the center on that one. 👍 The Electoral College was never really meant to be any kind of consistent way to select a President. Just remember there's nothing requiring what the current states do with winner take all or winning the electoral vote corresponding to won Congressional districts. It was up to the state legislature to decide (like how voting procedures are decided). Some would appoint their electors. They could allow the state governor to appoint electors. Electors could be faithless and allowed to vote as they pleased. But it was really designed to not select a President and then allow Congress to select, although with an odd single vote per state's House delegation. Interesting. I knew that electors didn't have to be faithful (noting that Ron Paul, Kasich, and Spotted Eagle all nabbed an electoral vote in 2016). In the present day, in my view, states are virtually winner-take-all.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 8, 2020 22:06:42 GMT -5
The first step I believe to all this is getting rid of career politicians and putting term limits on everyone. I know many voters of all parties that agree her. Not all but a lot. The parties stop caring about the people and more about their parties along time ago. This I have had agreement on also from people of different parties. So I don’t know how this would start but we need the government refocused on the people like it’s suppose to be. They are suppose to be representatives of the people but for along time now they have catered more to the party and lining their pockets from special interest groups. That’s all sides All sides? So you admit Trump doesn't represent the people too? Who does Trump represent?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 8, 2020 22:07:23 GMT -5
The Electoral College was never really meant to be any kind of consistent way to select a President. Just remember there's nothing requiring what the current states do with winner take all or winning the electoral vote corresponding to won Congressional districts. It was up to the state legislature to decide (like how voting procedures are decided). Some would appoint their electors. They could allow the state governor to appoint electors. Electors could be faithless and allowed to vote as they pleased. But it was really designed to not select a President and then allow Congress to select, although with an odd single vote per state's House delegation. Interesting. I knew that electors didn't have to be faithful (noting that Ron Paul, Kasich, and Spotted Eagle all nabbed an electoral vote in 2016). In the present day, in my view, states are virtually winner-take-all. There was a supreme court case this year that officially made it so states can punish faithless electors. Short-term loss (?) but it will help the legitimacy of the Interstate Popular vote compact.
|
|