Latest Breaking News

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)

11. No. I do not agree with your statement

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 12:34 AM

Aug 2012

"But Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Kansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii and the rest of the low-population states would not be worth campaigning in. "

Obviously if a Democrat spends more time in Texas and New York, then he will have less time to spend in other states. But all the electors spend the same, so if you can pick up an extra 5 electors in KY and TN by spending some time and money there, you might do that rather than fight for the last 2 electors in CA. As I see it, the system I propose would make it at least a 35-state contest versus what is practically a 10 state contest now.

The only states that probably get no attention are ND, SD, HI, AK, MT, and ID -- but they get no attention today either.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Al Gore Calls for End of Electoral College [View all] cal04 Aug 2012 OP

It will never happen. The south won't let it /nt still_one Aug 2012 #1

For once I agree with the south xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #10

That was not the intent of the electoral college. That is why they have 2 senators from every state still_one Aug 2012 #14

You began with a completely unargued statement and ended with an unargued opinion... xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #21

No matter what my view is, the fact is it won't go away, it is here to stay /nt still_one Aug 2012 #22

Maybe, but anything can be changed.. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #24

In theory yes. Either way I hear you /nt still_one Aug 2012 #34

Look, Arkansas has slightly fewer people than Chicago, but Arkansas voters have more power CreekDog Aug 2012 #40

You are comparing a city to a state.. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #41

look it's not the way democracies do things CreekDog Aug 2012 #43

I'm not speaking in favor of EC, I'm advocating against popular vote. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #44

I'm not arguing for pure democracy, but the voters should have equal power CreekDog Aug 2012 #48

There is more involved in changing the system than just getting rid of bad policies xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #45

the popular vote to elect the president and vice president CreekDog Aug 2012 #49

This is a republic not a democracy, like it or not...n/t pipoman Aug 2012 #119

A republic is a form of democracy. tabasco Sep 2012 #128

And I tire of people ascribing the dictionary definition of 'democracy' pipoman Sep 2012 #129

No, tabasco Sep 2012 #135

So you think it is a good xxqqqzme Aug 2012 #58

Then address the filibuster policies xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #59

No, it's about giving equal power to all voters cpwm17 Aug 2012 #76

People in Arkansas have a tradition of voting only once slackmaster Aug 2012 #78

If we did away with the electoral college, then each voter in your state would have the JDPriestly Aug 2012 #47

Nothing wrong with that, each voter having the same power CreekDog Aug 2012 #51

Sounds reasonable... onpatrol98 Aug 2012 #112

In a democracy, sheer numbers decide a lot of things like whether tax money goes to fund or JDPriestly Sep 2012 #120

not necessarily DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #64

You are confusing Congress with the EC apnu Aug 2012 #65

Yeah, why should more than half the goverment be based on voters CreekDog Aug 2012 #94

In a popular vote system, it would not be decided in any areas treestar Aug 2012 #74

They are already ignored Floyd_Gondolli Aug 2012 #81

I am 31 and Clinton carried AR in 1992 & 1996 xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #97

I don't like... GTurck Aug 2012 #75

I agree that it will never happen, but the Southern states are not the issue slackmaster Aug 2012 #77

electoral college is a fraud Dkc05 Aug 2012 #2

There are about 40 states that are either BLUE or RED XemaSab Aug 2012 #3

At the very least, we can push Ken Burch Aug 2012 #4

btw, is that an old file photo, or did Al grow another beard? Ken Burch Aug 2012 #5

He didn't say what solution he preferred. Popular vote is absulutely the wrong answer. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #6

Yes, Texas, Georgia, New York and California would be worth campaigning in jeff47 Aug 2012 #8

No. I do not agree with your statement BlueStreak Aug 2012 #11

Let me give a little example. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #17

Now do the math for the large cities. jeff47 Aug 2012 #23

But the other side wants to win also. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #30

It's a zero sum game. jeff47 Aug 2012 #32

The flaw is you're still thinking states. jeff47 Aug 2012 #18

There's nothing wrong with that. My system would be an improvement. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #31

Wow are you wrong. jeff47 Aug 2012 #35

That's why we have Congress cpwm17 Aug 2012 #79

One house of Congress represents the states. jeff47 Aug 2012 #88

California only gets attention as a place to get money. JDPriestly Aug 2012 #50

Exactly. There is no real incentive for EITHER Rs or Ds to vote BlueStreak Aug 2012 #67

That's why they don't want proportional voting. Sirveri Aug 2012 #98

I think they would spend time here JonLP24 Aug 2012 #71

Phoenix would get attention. The rest of the state would be ignored. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2012 #87

California gets 55 EV and my state gets 6 xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #16

And the problem with majority rule is ... ? BlueStreak Aug 2012 #19

The problem would be that a person could be xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #29

Can you please illustrate that with a scenario? BlueStreak Aug 2012 #33

Majority vote is about numbers. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #37

To add some numbers to this jeff47 Aug 2012 #39

Thank you. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #42

those 9 states have 18 senators, the other states have 82 CreekDog Aug 2012 #53

You're looking at states as monolithic entities muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #56

How their EC votes are given is determined by the state. xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #60

Using a popular vote treats each citizen like an individual muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #66

Right, but that gives too much of an advantage to election-riggers BlueStreak Aug 2012 #69

There's no advantage to a proportional EC muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #80

There is an advantage to a firewall. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #82

If a corrupt state alters, say, 10% of its individual votes muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #83

No. That is not "my system" BlueStreak Aug 2012 #84

Right, using your example numbers muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #90

I don't follow your numbers, but it isn't about the numbers anyway. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #91

Your scenario is one in which the total vote is very close, but the electoral college is not muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #93

You don't seem to understand the concept of "firewall" BlueStreak Aug 2012 #106

Ohio's electors are part of the election of the president muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #109

Cities would elect the candidates because most "individuals" live in them xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #99

Most individuals in the US are white; would you say it is white people who elect candidates? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #107

Sometimes it is. Obviously you can win elections without the minority vote or repubs would never win xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #115

Exactly. Proportional electors REDUCES the dominance of the big states BlueStreak Aug 2012 #68

The problem is that sometimes the majority tramples legitimate interests of minorities slackmaster Aug 2012 #85

so the minority should get the right to win elections with less votes than the majority? CreekDog Aug 2012 #108

A simple majority of ELECTORAL votes is required to elect the President slackmaster Aug 2012 #110

We were talking about what you think, not how it works CreekDog Aug 2012 #111

What I think doesn't matter. The EC is intended to protect the interests of small states. slackmaster Aug 2012 #113

"what I think doesn't matter" CreekDog Aug 2012 #114

I used to want to end the Electoral College jeff47 Aug 2012 #7

Re: the empty state problem BlueStreak Aug 2012 #9

I'm using 'state' as a convenient grouping mechanism. jeff47 Aug 2012 #15

In my system, the non-urban areas get MORE of a voice BlueStreak Aug 2012 #20

Only because you haven't done the math yet. (see my other reply) jeff47 Aug 2012 #26

And remember the "empty states" get 2 Senators. That is a huge amount of power. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #25

Assuming the filibuster will remain is not a good idea. jeff47 Aug 2012 #27

You do know, don't you, that NYC . . . markpkessinger Aug 2012 #117

Link? (nt) jeff47 Sep 2012 #122

Here ... markpkessinger Sep 2012 #125

Ah, there's the problem jeff47 Sep 2012 #134

Okay, but after this election shawn703 Aug 2012 #12

I see that happening also Freddie Aug 2012 #62

Therein lies the key hypocrisy of many people who wish to end the Electoral College slackmaster Aug 2012 #86

The easy way to do is is proportionate delagations at the state level bhikkhu Aug 2012 #13

As a practical matter, it would have to be done nationally. BlueStreak Aug 2012 #28

If California abandoned the electoral college we could say goodbye to ever electing a Democrat again cpwm17 Aug 2012 #95

I'm for a direct democracy. None of this republic shit. nt Comrade_McKenzie Aug 2012 #36

Yeah - why waste time with the Constitution - just do it like you want it...not! Direct Democracies 24601 Sep 2012 #123

My beef with the EC TexasBushwhacker Aug 2012 #38

It is a virtue of the EC to negate the factor of turnout BlueStreak Aug 2012 #70

Not only does it not count, it goes to Rmoney treestar Aug 2012 #73

We in California don't count nearly as much as the voters in Rhode Island or Wyoming or JDPriestly Aug 2012 #46

That makes little sense. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #127

This just occurred to him now? jberryhill Aug 2012 #52

Oddly, the EC will probably benefit Obama this election season... Drunken Irishman Aug 2012 #54

Eventually, the EC may become Proportional But LarryNM Aug 2012 #55

Winning the popular vote and "losing" the election xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #61

It didn't start with California karynnj Aug 2012 #57

Well, now Republicans must support the electoral college, since they cannot ever agree with Al Gore. tclambert Aug 2012 #63

Popular vote makes more sense considering we are a democracy. bamacrat Aug 2012 #72

Thank you Al Gore n/t librechik Aug 2012 #89

One voter, one vote. What's not to like? Throd Aug 2012 #92

Exactly TexasBushwhacker Aug 2012 #100

No, I'd limit absentee ballots to legal voters, not just anyone who asks. I don't want 8 year olds 24601 Sep 2012 #124

Until we have a better way of counting votes MurrayDelph Aug 2012 #105

I think it should be abolished too! Liberalynn Aug 2012 #96

I'll second that. Cleita Aug 2012 #101

Or in other words sgsmith Aug 2012 #103

I don't think there would have been a majority nationwide. Cleita Aug 2012 #104

I agree Auggie Aug 2012 #102

The electoral College is fucking stupid... and-justice-for-all Aug 2012 #116

Just want to be careful what we change it to Billy888 Aug 2012 #118

One person one vote. No taxation without equal representation. Exultant Democracy Sep 2012 #121

The Electorial College is a firewall against state-level election fraud. w4rma Sep 2012 #126

watch this video on the electoral college wilt the stilt Sep 2012 #130

Thank you wilt the stilt for the link cal04 Sep 2012 #132

As long as the electoral college remains, your vote is merely a suggestion. Dump it. humblebum Sep 2012 #131

Generally, Californians hate the EC taught_me_patience Sep 2012 #133

I'd favor preference voting and getting rid of the EC. roamer65 Sep 2012 #136

If you want to read about something very fraudulent and undemocratic about the EC... roamer65 Sep 2012 #137