candycorn
Diamond Member
Given that the people do not elect the President - how so?Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency.
I hope you amuse yourself as much as you amuse others.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Given that the people do not elect the President - how so?Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency.
I invite you to cite examples as well.No you won't.My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.
When Republicans lose, they don't cry about the system being "unfair".
Right...
My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.
That's very unlikely considering that California and New York will be so overwhelmingly Democratic. They could go 20,000,000 more votes in the popular vote and the other 55 states go Republican by slim margins and Romney would win with maybe 45% of the popular vote.
I don't know about you, but I don't want 2 states to decide who runs the rest.
Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency. We should make it to where you must win both to become President. You must have appeal in several different regions and you must have enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office.
Electoral college.
The US is a republic of 50 states.
The President is the head of state of that republic of 50 states.
The states, therefore, should have the say in who is the head of state.
Thus, the electoral college.
Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency. We should make it to where you must win both to become President. You must have appeal in several different regions and you must have enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office.
No.
The failure to win both could lead to a constitutional crises. It has to be one or the other.
Think about it.
In any event, the presence of the Electoral College already drives both. It is in only very close elections that the Electoral College could possibly override the popular vote anyway. Hence, for example, Bush had "appeal" in most regions of the country and had "enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office".
There is nothing insane about it.
Which do you think it should be?
Which do you think it should be?
I think it should be exactly as it is, and has been for 200 Plus Years.
I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college but it's does keep states with smaller populations from being totally ignored by Presidential candidates if we went by just the popular vote where would candidates focus most of their attention? NewYork, California, Texas and a few others.
Which do you think it should be?
I think it should be exactly as it is, and has been for 200 Plus Years.
The way it works today is not how it was envisioned as working 200+ years ago. Indeed, it some ways it works in exactly the opposite way.
I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college but it's does keep states with smaller populations from being totally ignored by Presidential candidates if we went by just the popular vote where would candidates focus most of their attention? NewYork, California, Texas and a few others.
My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.
Sorry, But if that Happens Republicans will accept it like Men and move on, they wont cry about an Unfair System, because the System is not Unfair, it works.
ROFLMAO. Oh, you're funny.
I think it should be exactly as it is, and has been for 200 Plus Years.
The way it works today is not how it was envisioned as working 200+ years ago. Indeed, it some ways it works in exactly the opposite way.
No, the EC works exactly as intended by taking in part, ultimate control from the most populous states. It's a brilliant solution
Popular vote. The electoral college is stupid.
I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college but it's does keep states with smaller populations from being totally ignored by Presidential candidates if we went by just the popular vote where would candidates focus most of their attention? NewYork, California, Texas and a few others.
Doesn't it seem a little perverse that those very large population states are not visited by candidates for President (other than to occasionally fundraise) because the winner of their electoral votes is already known?
Besides, it's not as if candidates are going out of their way to campaign in Wyoming due to the electoral college.
Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency. We should make it to where you must win both to become President. You must have appeal in several different regions and you must have enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office.
No.
The failure to win both could lead to a constitutional crises. It has to be one or the other.
Think about it.
In any event, the presence of the Electoral College already drives both. It is in only very close elections that the Electoral College could possibly override the popular vote anyway. Hence, for example, Bush had "appeal" in most regions of the country and had "enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office".
There is nothing insane about it.
The Constitution has a provision for that; the HOR will decide who is President and the Senate the VP if I recall. Just add in the stipulation that not only must she or he win the electoral college, but ALSO the popular vote as well.
To recommend otherwise is to recommend that the plurality of voter's wishes should not be considered.
You do know that you have no right to vote for President - right?Remember on at least two separate occasions the EC has "elected" someone other than who the majority had voted for. It needs to be put to rest.