Dem Governor 1st to veto National Popular Vote Bill

GDS said:

SFGbob said:

GDS said:

RaceBannon said:

GDS said:

Sledog said:

The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?

You assume the other states are static which they aren't

I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?

Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.

A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.

SFGbob said:

GDS said:

TurdBomber said:

GDS said:

SFGbob said:

GDS said:

RaceBannon said:

GDS said:

Sledog said:

The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?

You assume the other states are static which they aren't

I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?

Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.

A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.

You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

Oops. Too late.

Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....

Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.

UW_Doog_Bot said:

GDS said:

SFGbob said:

GDS said:

TurdBomber said:

GDS said:

SFGbob said:

GDS said:

RaceBannon said:

GDS said:

Sledog said:

The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?

You assume the other states are static which they aren't

I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?

Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.

A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.

You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

Oops. Too late.

Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....

Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.

Such a stupid lazy rebutal. The idea that a popular vote election would be decided by California, Texas and Florida is laughable.

Yeap, totally FS to think that you could split politics down by population density and have a stark divide between urban and non-urban centers.