Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.
In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.
Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.
Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.
A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.
Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.
How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.
Why not try for a constitutional amendment?
Really. Why don't you?
But that will only be in close results according to your conditions, where apparently those have been the only times absentee ballots are counted and analysed. It is not a given where the result is decisive, as in California.The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican.
Although he was going to blue states, hoping to flip them. It was controversial, but he did flip them! Their internal polls must have indicated how the polls by other sources were all wrong.I would guess no one campaigned in Illinois or California...in essence, Hillary has a positive count before the election even started.In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.
In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.
Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.
Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.
A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.
Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.
How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.
Well Trump probably didn't need to campaign in many other places either.
In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.
In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.
Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.
Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.
A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.
Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.
How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.
Why not try for a constitutional amendment?
Really. Why don't you?
Because one person can't do it on their own. You need to get support of enough people.
And you know you won't. Understood.
Well there's that too, that's because of the system too, another reason to change things.
I have told you in the past that your changes are uneducated and fraudulent.
You do not understand sociology, which is why you cannot comprehend why your beliefs do not function. You ignore the roots of the problem.
Wow you're telling me what I know and what I don't know. That's... er.... bullshit.
Wow you're telling me what I know and what I don't know. That's... er.... bullshit.
Yes.
I can formulate opinions on the views and psyche of others. It is about as valid as anything else.
You have no idea what I know and what I don't know, and you don't know my psyche from behind a computer screen. Sorry, but to make such assumptions is ridiculous.
You have no idea what I know and what I don't know, and you don't know my psyche from behind a computer screen. Sorry, but to make such assumptions is ridiculous.
I do have ideas. They could be wrong, but I doubt it.
The office is called "President of The United STATES". Not "President of the people of....".
OK, so by definition the states choose the president and the vehicle is The Electoral College System.
Which worked OK when states were just beginning to be populated.
But now that's all changed and population change is minimal.
So the system should be changed.
Keeping the "President of The United STATES" concept that's in the constitution the simple approach would be to make the distribution of electoral votes fair and equitable. One EV per state. The one (1, libs) per state would be required to go to the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. Won by a simple majority. So if there were three candidates and each of two got 33% of the vote (66%) but the other one got 34% then there's the winner!
Get it done and the interests of states like Hawaii and Alaska would be on a level court with California and Illinois.
Yeah. That Would be fair!
But representative democracies have a system where a minority cannot win an election, usually because of proportional representation.
Yeah, proportional, where every vote has equal value.Proportional?
In the presidential election you vote might be worth more, or might be worth less, than you'd think.
In Wyoming for ever EC vote there are 195,000 people.
In Texas there are 722,000.
Hardly seems fair that a person in Wyoming's vote is going to be worth three and a half times more than a person's vote in Texas.
Beyond this a vote in a state which is all for one candidate will then further reduce a person's vote, or increase it.
A vote in Michigan, where the margin of victory was 0.27% was worth a lot more than a vote in DC where the margin of victory was 86%. Essentially all votes in Michigan meant something, but in DC only about 6% of Democrats' votes meant anything.
Also, there's an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted the candidates to care about the whole country, and not just large urban centers. However what exists now? An election where candidates only really care about certain states which will have close margins.
How much time did each candidate spend in each state? I can't find the figures, but I'd bet it's not equal to the population in that state. I'd guess closer states got much more attention, thereby making what the founders wanted not exist any more.
Why not try for a constitutional amendment?
Really. Why don't you?
Because one person can't do it on their own. You need to get support of enough people.
And you know you won't. Understood.
You can either fight for what you think is worth fighting for, or you can roll over and take it up the ass from your rich overlords. Which will you do?
