Author Topic: sKerry will win "the popular vote" (Read 1340 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** October 05, 2004, 10:58:08 PM »

RPM, there is plentiful discussion available in books and on the web that purports that a vote in one state has more/less value than a vote in another state. They even have nifty equations to prove it.

rpm · « **Reply #46 on:** October 05, 2004, 10:58:36 PM »

Yes, I am advocating a straight popular vote for the only election that does not have one. Like I said, I don't see it changing anytime soon. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Eagler · « **Reply #47 on:** October 05, 2004, 10:58:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dnil
you are advocating a straight popular vote? am I wrong? States would have even less of a say so with that option. Read my original plan, each state gets 1 vote.

dems would never go for that

Sandman · « **Reply #48 on:** October 05, 2004, 11:26:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
Come on Sandman, you are a moderately smart guy. You know what "weighted" means and why it is relevant.

Yeah... it means my vote weighs less than some ****stick in Wyoming.

J_A_B · « **Reply #49 on:** October 05, 2004, 11:29:29 PM »

"I don't understand the point you are trying to make. 1 person, 1 vote. It doesn't matter where you live when you cast it. States are not gerrymandered."

It isn't the President's job to directly represent the people (that is what the House of Representatives is for), it is his job to make government work--by definition he is the executive branch. Therefore, choosing the President is based on all facets of our legislative branch, not just one side of it. The Electoral system is derived from the number of votes a State gets from its congressmen. Since the Senate represents STATES while the House represents the population--both the states AND the people choose the president....in theory. Hence the EC system.

The Electoral College system is every bit as based on population as our Congress is, and I don't see anyone claiming that the Senate needs to be abolished (well 100 years ago there were such comments but not today). Take away each state's natural equality as states--their two votes from their senators--and each state has electoral votes in proportion to their population.

The problem as I see it is the way electoral votes are awarded. I figure that each state's first two votes--the ones based on their senators--should vote according to the wishes of the entire state (the winner of the state gets them). Beyond that it should ideally be properly proportional to how the popular votes fell.

J_A_B

straffo · « **Reply #50 on:** October 06, 2004, 02:19:19 AM »

we had in France something similar to the EC (albeit my country is not made of states) it sucked greatly but again this is not a federal country (we have "région" instead).

I would be pissed to see the enphasys put on some particuliar area because they are small and sucked so much they completly missed the industrial revolution.

I guess you are first citizen of a states then citizen of the USA whereas in France whatever place you are born you are french and should have the same rights whatever is your living place.

Wotan · « **Reply #51 on:** October 06, 2004, 05:37:18 AM »

Well it used to be like that Straffo. Folks were "Virginians, Georgians etc..."

The traitor Lincoln along with many others imposed their ever growing Federal power on the States. Instead of standing up like men and resisting our State representatives saw an opportunity to enhance their own importance by going along.

CavemanJ · « **Reply #52 on:** October 06, 2004, 08:31:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
Exactly, those in rural low density areas will be ignored as politicians simply campaign within the large population centers.

This good for liberals but bad for America.

Isn't that already what's going on? The "real" campaining only happening in several "key" states, and the rest getting only a few ads here and there?

Wotan · « **Reply #53 on:** October 06, 2004, 08:48:44 AM »

No their a difference between campaigning in "key" or "battleground states" and just pandering to urbanites in the large population centers.

lazs2 · « **Reply #54 on:** October 06, 2004, 08:54:08 AM »

no point in pandering to the apartment dwelling, taxi riders... they are so out of touch whith middle America that their vote is like the black vote of teachers vote... it is a given and not worth either parties time.

lazs

Mighty1 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 06, 2004, 10:20:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Yeah... it means my vote weighs less than some ****stick in Wyoming.

No it means your vote is equal to everyone in YOUR state. That is all you need to worry about. YOUR state. Not mine not your neighbors but YOUR state.

BTW who is votemaster? and did they see the same debate I did? "John Edwards won the vice-presidential debate 41% to 28% " a tie maybe but no way in hell EITHER actually won outright.

Wotan · « **Reply #56 on:** October 06, 2004, 10:43:44 AM »

That's right Mighty.

If folks spent their political energy getting their local and state governments straight rather then running to the Federal Government then the whole Presidential nonsense would be all but meaningless.

The power of our "Democracy" originally was founded in our local and state governments. This was by design.

Damn Lincoln...