Beer and Cheese
I know we're not supposed to have any political threads, but I thought if everyone would just keep their political comments to yourself we could keep this one open.
well even if somone has the popular vote they can still loose, such as the 2004 election. i think its time to move on from the electoral collegeThe person who wins = the person that more people in the country want to win [generally].
I'm a firm believer of if you don't like WHO is president, then you can leave.
Thank you! I dont vote for that reason. I dont really think your vote counts for much, the electoral college is what counts. When there is no electoral college i'll be happy to vote.well even if somone has the popular vote they can still loose, such as the 2004 election. i think its time to move on from the electoral college
You know, it's funny you should mention that, yesterday I went out and registered/got my ballots, and the line was very long. After conversing with my line neighbors a little bit, one guy started off on a rant on why the Canadian political system is better. They have multiple parties, during elections you only vote for parties, then the winning party will have executive control and be the largest group in the parliament. Also, if the leading party isn't holding popularity, a no confidence vote can be taken in parliament, and if the majority votes for the no confidence, an election will take place about a month afterwards--no more sticking with the guy who's not working.I'm not going to vote for the following reasons:
1. I don't like either candidate and I'm tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils"
2. No matter who is elected, it is always just the "same ole BS, different day".
3. If I were to vote, it would be for Sen. McCain. But I live in AL: No way, no how is Sen. Obama going to win AL. (AL has gone Republican since 1980)
4. I adamantly HATE the "winner takes all" of the Electoral College. (A simple modification would fix all the problems: Make it a percentage: If one candidate gets 55%, another gets 40%, and a third gets 5% of the popular vote, then divvy up the Electoral College votes along the percentage lines. That way people’s votes ACTUALLY COUNT. :redmad:
If I thought the election in AL would be close, then I would definitely vote.
Yeah, I know I should vote and I highly recommend everyone else vote. I’m just so frustrated in not having anyone to vote for that I elect to abstain.
I’m voting “present”. :zwall:
Every state should be set up that way!!http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html said:What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule?
There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.
Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.
Senator Kerry lost the 2004 election by both the Popular and Electoral votes. That was 2000, in which VP Gore won the popular vote, which leads me to my next point since you do not have your facts straight...three times has a candidate won the popular vote, yet lost the electoral. Numerous times has a direct election system been introduced and failed in Congress. The Electoral College is there for a reason, it upholds the conceptual practice of dual federalism.....Not only have 40 out of 43 administrations been elected by victories in both polls, but the issue of the abolishment of the electoral rose directly out of the 2000 election, most likely because 98% of the populous doesnt have a frickin clue on how the government works. The founding fathers created the electoral college for this reason, and just because most of this country only cares about how the government works every four years, thats their problem.well even if somone has the popular vote they can still loose, such as the 2004 election. i think its time to move on from the electoral college
people can change after they realize the amount of power they have. they could aslo go against some of their policies they only stated to get more votes. so thats where impeachment comes into play.