- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
More spewing by you. Figures.Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy!!!
For some reason I doubt it will stop. Prove me wrong.
More spewing by you. Figures.Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy!!!
Thanks. Interesting story that I wasn't aware of (Though I am Sicilian and gratified that we actually did a war a some point in our history). I've been meaning to read more on Alcibiadas after I finish reading up on Belisarius.
I agree with you that democracy are problematic. Where we disagree is on the idea that popularly elected government - or part of government - makes that government or part democratic. Just because Senators are popularly elected and not appointed by their legislatures doesn't necessarily make the Senate a democratic institution (I don't think). And if it does, since legislatures are democratically elected and express the will of the people does that not too make Senators democratic? I don't know - it's one of the questions I'm trying to work out for myself.
More spewing by you. Figures.
For some reason I doubt it will stop. Prove me wrong.
Have a super-duper weekend.
I knew you would prove me right.
You did it again. Will wonders never cease?An extra special weekend to you my good, good friend.
You did it again. Will wonders never cease?
When are you going to change your socks?
Now you are on to something! Those 3 votes have a value in a Presidential election. If we go to a popular vote, Wyoming is just a waste, any candidate that even considers going there would be wasting their time and money.
Now, Republicans hardly campaign in California, only if they have a shot at those 55 votes will they go there. But it's not because California doesn't matter.
[/QUOTE]Wyoming will still have 3 votes.
NOW, Wyoming is a waste. No candidate considers going there. It would be wasting their time and money.
NOW, California is an equal waste. No candidate considers going there. It would be wasting their time and money.
80% of states and voters are written off and taken for granted.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.
Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election.
None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.
About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.
National Popular Vote ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
Wyoming will still have 3 votes.
NOW, Wyoming is a waste. No candidate considers going there. It would be wasting their time and money.
NOW, California is an equal waste. No candidate considers going there. It would be wasting their time and money.
80% of states and voters are written off and taken for granted.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states)
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
National Popular Vote ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
It is outdated!
Just think of our founding. We were composed of 13 small and 13 large states jealous of each other for various reasons. Our country was spread along states that were very rural that was not connected by transportation or communication. We were paranoid of British influence in our elections. We were afraid of slaves as well. Hell we didnt even trust the poor to vote..
So if we remove the electoral college what radical **** is going to happen?
the least populated states will cease to have a voice.
how about we return to the original electoral college.
instead of letting the parties pick the electors, we let the people of the state elect the electors, like it used to be done in early America
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
With both the current system and National Popular Vote, the people of the state elect the electors.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
the least populated states will cease to have a voice.
Would not matter. Would eliminate the whole electoral votes based on state populations.
Not if its decided by national popular vote?i believe each state gets a say in who is elected president of the USA.
And in the current system one piece of **** state like Florida can **** it all up.if the presidential election is solely based on the national popular vote, rural America looses greatly and the big populous cities/metro areas win big time.
Not if its decided by national popular vote?
And in the current system one piece of **** state like Florida can **** it all up.
That would defeat the purpose of the national popular vote.each state gets its say.
I disagree. We used to not elect senators on popular vote. But hey we got rid of that.i know you don't like that idea, but that's a fundamental thing that can't change.
the electoral college gives the states a voice by population(house members) and by their 2 senators in the electoral college.
it's 2014, not 2000!
Not if its decided by national popular vote?
And in the current system one piece of **** state like Florida can **** it all up.