Our Presidential election process (via the electoral college) makes it difficult for a party to win by focusing on only the most populous demographics. For example, it's really hard to win by focusing on urban voters and dismissing rural voters.
Because rural demographics deserve some special protection?
I think that (in addition to the electoral win) it should require majority support - not just a plurality. And if they fail, we have a run off until one of them makes it. That's basically what ranked choice voting accomplishes.
Because every state in the union has sovereignty... Montana and Texas have equal power in the Senate because of the structure of the U.S. Congress... that balances representation between populous and less populous states...
Because every state in the union has sovereignty... Montana and Texas have equal power in the Senate because of the structure of the U.S. Congress... that balances representation between populous and less populous states...
Since it is part of the system it can’t screw up. The only screw up are people that ***** and moan about it and yet, like yourself, do nothing about it but complain. Real positive action there.
If it's based on acreage, shouldn't Alaska have about 100 EC votes?
Well, the system has to work in all conditions. If you have 2 candidates or 200. Currently we have 2 major parties. That could change. So I’m good with a plurality.
Well, if we add the stipulation that the President elect also get the plurality of the popular vote in addition to 270 electoral college votes, they would.
Plurality IS the problem. That's how Hitler got elected. We should demand majority support for the leader of the entire country. And, to be clear, I'm not arguing against the EC - I think it's an important safeguard.
Nope. The founders were wise enough to allow amendments to the constitution. Slavery is already taken care of. Now if you were wise enough to get off the dem plantation that would be great.I love when right wingers admit that they think slavers are end all be all to political thought.
Wise enough to allow for change but not actually changing from slavery is even more damning to the deplorable nature of the Founders you Moron. It would be one thing if they engaged in slavery under duress but they chose it.
Of course they have a voice, in selecting their representatives. As intended.
Wise enough to allow for change but not actually changing from slavery is even more damning to the deplorable nature of the Founders you Moron. It would be one thing if they engaged in slavery under duress but they chose it.
I put them on ignore. They don't understand facts about basic political things.
I had plenty, looks like you have nothing for a response. You stupid Simps have been taught for so long to toss Slaver salad that you don't even think to question their 200+ year old beliefs. Amazing.
