For the purposes of persuasion I will presume good faith until explicitly demonstrated otherwise. I would hope that you or anyone else would extend me the same courtesy when we disagree.
I'm not interested in whatever half-baked theories you care to give the world. I'd simply like an answer to the very fundamental question of why one person's vote in one state should be worth three times the vote of a person in another state.
One of the reasons I still post in here is because some of the topics make me challenge my own opinions. While playing around on the topic at hand on google, I came across this article https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/how-fair-is-the-electoral-college/ Interesting stats some of you might not be aware of. Not necessarily changing my mind on anything but seeing the underrepresentation of our four most populated states certainly caught my eye. Beats calling people racist [emoji23]
Here’s another one, looking at how increasing electoral votes based on population alone wouldn’t necessarily change the outcome. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...oral-college-might-not-change-results-n986691 Interesting stuff. And no Russian asset accusations!
This is why i like NZ's mixed PR system Your overall standing in the house reflects the exact % of the vote you got. That means there is no benefit in gerrymandering the districts which is what used to go on all the time in the FPTP system
It's usually rare that a single discussion of an issue can bring about a wholesale shift in one's position, but I certainly hope I've helped you see it in a new light.
Matthaus probably refers to this part. But what people that want to base the election on popular vote forget this part. We do not pick the President based on a National vote, we pick a president based on 51 state/DC election that just happened to be on the same day.
Hooray for reading comprehension! YAAAAY! They don't learn ya too good in Ohio, huh? No, my beef is exactly what I said in the original post. The timing of the primaries, and how certain states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a lot more influence than the others. But that's OK. Unlike El Jefe, I won't complain that somehow your vote in a swing state is more important than mine. My state will always be blue, so we don't have anything to worry about. I just hope that this time, all the struggling factory workers in places like Youngstown will understand that no matter what, some con man from New York City will never, ever do anything for them, no matter how many Muslims he promises to kick out of the country.
FYI, Mahoning county, where Youngstown is located, voted Clinton. So maybe they don’t need someone from the big city to tell them anything.
What a disgrace she turned out to be. I place her in the Lipinski camp -- the two Democrats who should be primaried out of politics.
Correct. My complaint also applies to the very blue state of Vermont, whose population is not that much greater than Wyoming's. If someone else wants to have a go at why Vermont should be overrepresented compared to New York, its next-door neighbor, have at it.
Should States have 2 Senators each? This was debated and the bicameral Congress was the compromise, but like everything, just because it has always been that way, it does not mean it should always be that way. The 12th amendment changed parts of article 2 of the constitution, we can always amend the constitution again to circumvent the states in terms of electing the President and Vice president.
So far 9 candidates for the next debate. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/klobuchar-is-the-ninth-candidate-to-make-the-november-debate/
I cringe when I imagine what a Biden v Trump debate would be like. Two blathering dotards who wander off in the middle of a sentence...