Elections Are there better options to the electoral college?

Darth_Inv1ctu5 said:
? I'm sorry, is your choice of where you live anybody's problem? So much so that we have to make your voice count more than somebody else's?

Nah.
Click to expand...

Your voice counts as much as others in your own state...

That doesn’t mean that one state imposes it’s will on others
 
Cherry Brigand said:
The problem is as time goes on people get stupider and therefore become more liberal...
Click to expand...

Can you wait a few years before you pull this card out? It comes off as
panamaican said:
Yeah, I saw that later. It's still the same argument though just modified to their advantage. Popular vote people want to shift it to the more populous states and screw the less populous ones. This "one state, one vote" idiocy is the same thing shifting the voting power to their states and screwing the others.

Either way, they're all arguing the same "preferential treatment for my state" line of thought.
Click to expand...

A better argument would be that it is in the nations best interest to develop rural areas. The thing that I hate about that is the rural areas press a culture on the metros. Rural areas also don't really want development because development requires being able to draw diverse groups of people and that brings liberal policies. Nearly every metro across the U.S. is liberal. As it is now, rural areas are over represented, expect to receive more federals moneys then they pay in, and avoid measures to make their regions attractive to young professions. I used to live in Oklahoma and there were no shortage of dying towns and cities. No young professional wants to live in rural Oklahoma. You want to be overly conservative, overbearingly religious, and backwards on race and lgbt polices, the fact that you can't attract young workers and businesses is on you, not everyone else. It really says something in these regions when the Chamber of Commerce is the one pushing liberal policies.
 
Last edited:
yeah
everyone casts their vote
we get rid of the electoral college and the "popular" vote just becomes the vote
 
nhbbear said:
That is my thought process. A potus candidate is supposed to care more about cali vote than five other states combined? Last I checked, potus was supposed to represent all fifty-not just the ones they want the votes from
Click to expand...

An argument can be made that people living in cities have the most to lose from the actions of the POTUS, since they would be the primary targets for foreign power or terror attacks
 
grimballer said:
It does.

If you strictly go by population size there’s no point in having individual states
Click to expand...
It doesn't, at all.
Setting Millions of votes to be equivalent to Hundreds of thousands is not equal nor is it even close to approaching being equal. It is probably the most unequal voting system we could implement.
 
blaseblah said:
So you want the 580,000 people in Wyoming to have the same vote as the 40 million people in California?

<36>
Click to expand...

Yeah, one vote per state is a certain level of retarded.

Popular vote would be fine. Only two presidents since like 1886 have won the presidency without winning the popular vote and they might be the two worst presidents in modern history.
 
nhbbear said:
That is my thought process. A potus candidate is supposed to care more about cali vote than five other states combined? Last I checked, potus was supposed to represent all fifty-not just the ones they want the votes from
Click to expand...

When Cali has 10 times as many people as those five states combined? Yes. 100%. Land doesn't get to vote.
 
We need Dwayne the rock Johnson to run as a new independent party so we can finally have a three party system
 
CubicleGangster said:
It doesn't, at all.
Setting Millions of votes to be equivalent to Hundreds of thousands is not equal nor is it even close to approaching being equal. It is probably the most unequal voting system we could implement.
Click to expand...

it isn’t if you want to represent all the states equally instead of pockets of urban population
 
Prefect said:
Can you wait a few years before you pull this card out? It comes off as


A better argument would be that it is in the nations best interest to develop rural areas. The thing that I hate about that is the rural areas press a culture on the metros. Rural areas also don't really want development because development requires being able to draw diverse groups of people and that brings liberal policies. Nearly every metro across the U.S. is liberal. As it is now, rural areas are over represented, expect to receive more federals moneys then they pay in, and avoid measures to make their regions attractive to young professions. I used to live in Oklahoma and there were no shortage of dying towns and cities. No young professional wants to live in rural Oklahoma.
Click to expand...
Economic realities will slowly force rural America to change their positions but it's going to be a slow change and that's preferable. If we made large scale societal changes in a matter of years, the instability would be awful. I take solace that Trump was a 1 term president, that system can self correct to some degree.
 
I voted Trump...no I dont wanna see electoral college changed. Its the most fair system. I do want to see the voting system changed but I have been praying for that since the Gore-Bush debacle. Doesnt look like its happening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,994
Messages
55,460,023
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top