Leaving the Union

[mrhotdice]

Because of the way the electoral college works, only a few states really elect the president. You have the left coast that attracts all the immigrants and you have most big cities with black populations basically running the entire state such as Chicago in Illinois and Detroit in Michigan and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. In the last election, their were precincts in Philadelphia that were 100 % for Obama. Not one republican vote.

Can anyone think of another way to elect a president that makes more sense than the electoral college.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

What does your post about electoral college have to do with leaving the union?

The electoral vote is the best system. If you scrap it and go with national popular vote then heavily populated states will have even more say, and lesser populated states will have less. It's worked well for a long time. Leave it alone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

What does your post about electoral college have to do with leaving the union?

The electoral vote is the best system. If you scrap it and go with national popular vote then heavily populated states will have even more say, and lesser populated states will have less. It's worked well for a long time. Leave it alone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

This doesn't make any sense. 1 person has one say. Who cares where they live. If we didn't have a Congress, I could see sticking with the electoral college, but there's absolutely no reason for it.

There's a reason why presidential candidates don't campaign in Kentucky. Our vote doesn't mean jack. Our voice doesn't mean jack. Basically Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a few other states are deciding every single presidential election these days. If you think 3-5 states deciding who's the president on a yearly basis isn't a broken system, then maybe you are what the OP was referring to with the subject "Leaving the Union."

 

[Saguaro Cat]

Because of the way the electoral college works, only a few states really elect the president. You have the left coast that attracts all the immigrants and you have most big cities with black populations basically running the entire state such as Chicago in Illinois and Detroit in Michigan and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. In the last election, their were precincts in Philadelphia that were 100 % for Obama. Not one republican vote.

Can anyone think of another way to elect a president that makes more sense than the electoral college.

[roll]Translation: How can we make white people more important?

 

[buckethead1978]

I wish the OP was trolling.

 

[GnarlsBarkley]

Was listening to npr a couple weeks ago and heard a story about how other countries run their elections. In one country, I think it was Australia, everybody has to vote. The way I understood it is you have to have a legit excuse to get out of it, and there are penalites for not doing it almost like jury duty is here.

They said this actually makes the candidates more moderate because they have to appeal to more than just their party's ardent base.

 

[JumperJack]

What you really ought to be saying is how can the half of people who are supporting the other half leave the Union.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

This doesn't make any sense. 1 person has one say. Who cares where they live. If we didn't have a Congress, I could see sticking with the electoral college, but there's absolutely no reason for it.

There's a reason why presidential candidates don't campaign in Kentucky. Our vote doesn't mean jack. Our voice doesn't mean jack. Basically Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a few other states are deciding every single presidential election these days. If you think 3-5 states deciding who's the president on a yearly basis isn't a broken system, then maybe you are what the OP was referring to with the subject "Leaving the Union."

They don't campaign in Kentucky because they know, via polling, that your state will go for the republican.

If you scrap the electoral college and go with popular vote then Kentucky votes will count for even less. Look it up. Read the link I offered. Learn it. Get back to me. You're welcome!

 

[WettCat]

They don't campaign in Kentucky because they know,

Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want more campaign signs, advertisements, radio hits, etc. blaring at you 24/7? It's bad enough already.

 

[Hank Camacho]

Was listening to npr a couple weeks ago and heard a story about how other countries run their elections. In one country, I think it was Australia, everybody has to vote. The way I understood it is you have to have a legit excuse to get out of it, and there are penalites for not doing it almost like jury duty is here.

They said this actually makes the candidates more moderate because they have to appeal to more than just their party's ardent base.

Primary voting should be compulsory for every member of a party. That'd clear a lot of this nonsense up right there.

 

[cardkilla_rivals379685]

Was listening to npr a couple weeks ago and heard a story about how other countries run their elections. In one country, I think it was Australia, everybody has to vote. The way I understood it is you have to have a legit excuse to get out of it, and there are penalites for not doing it almost like jury duty is here.

They said this actually makes the candidates more moderate because they have to appeal to more than just their party's ardent base.

yeah, several countries do this and it should be considered here. It's a shame that just over half of the voting population votes. We should really have 80-85% voting rate, considering we're supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

I like how only motivated (and hopefully, informed) people get out and vote. Last thing we need is a bunch of uninformed people voting. Does anyone really want people that don't pay attention and have no clue screwing up things for the rest of us?

 

[mashburned]

Hell yea!!!!

In our country it's illegal to not have healthcare, and voting is like 50-60%.

I like how only motivated (and hopefully, informed) people get out and vote. Last thing we need is a bunch of uninformed people voting. Does anyone really want people that don't pay attention and have no clue screwing up things for the rest of us?

LMAOO

 

[KyCatFan_rivals45723]

I like how only motivated (and hopefully, informed) people get out and vote. Last thing we need is a bunch of uninformed people voting. Does anyone really want people that don't pay attention and have no clue screwing up things for the rest of us?

Those motivated and informed people have done a bang up job with their votes in recent years. I'm sure there was so much thought in a Democrat voting for a Democrat or a Republican voting for a Republican. There were some people that only came out to vote because of the race of the candidate. I prefer to do it by which is the best candidate in my opinion. I wouldn't vote by whether they are white, black, man, woman, Democrat, or Republican.

 

[UKGrad93]

The electoral college is about states rights. Maybe we should go back to the system that only allows land owners to vote, but how would that work for people that have mortgages? Do you really own your house or not? Would be the easiest way to exclude the poors.

 

[Dore95]

so the OP is upset that immigrants and black people are influencing the election and wants to change that so that whites from Ky and similar states will have more say? Sounds about right.

 

[PuffyNips]

The majority of Americans voted for Obama in the last election, so changing the electoral college system wouldn't have mattered (unless you want to give blacks, hispanics and women only half of a vote - which may be what the OP wants).

Other than Bush II, has anyone else ever lost the popular vote and won? That's the only time a "rigged system" came in to play.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

so the OP is upset that immigrants and black people are influencing the election and wants to change that so that whites from Ky and similar states will have more say? Sounds about right.

And...he doesn't seem to grasp that states like KY would have LESS say without electoral votes, not more.

Have they stopped teaching civics in HS?

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

The majority of Americans voted for Obama in the last election, so changing the electoral college system wouldn't have mattered (unless you want to give blacks, hispanics and women only half of a vote - which may be what the OP wants).

Other than Bush II, has anyone else ever lost the popular vote and won? That's the only time a "rigged system" came in to play.

Three times in the 1800s. John Quincy Adams, Hayes and Harrison.

 

[GYERater]

Don't worry OP, I watched 13th on Netflix and most blacks are apparently felons and can't vote anyway. Keep your focus on the immigrants.

 

[UKGrad93]

Three times in the 1800s. John Quincy Adams, Hayes and Harrison.

John Quincy Adams lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote. (had to google that ****).

 

[qwesley]

When you have a party stating clearly that they want to flood certain states with immigrants to get fixed path to 270+ we should be bothered by that. Cue xenophobia, etc. Let's see where populistic one party rule takes us.

 

[mashburned]

And...he doesn't seem to grasp that states like KY would have LESS say without electoral votes, not more.

Have they stopped teaching civics in HS?

Yes, like a decade ago. At least.

 

[UK_Dallas]

Break down state electoral votes by congressional district and then the 2 senator votes go to the popular vote winner statewide. That would certainly keep liberal states such as Cali and NY from going completely blue. Would also keep many red states from being completely red. Everyone would feel their vote counts using that system.

 

[BernieSadori]

I left the Union when I was 22. Local 89 to be exact.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I think the biggest problem with the electoral college is that it is not that different than what straight popular vote would decide. The concept is fine. We are a collection of individual states. Why would a state agree to be apart of a system if their population is so small they essentially have no say in who is elected? They wouldn't. For example, why would the United States agree to be apart of a world government system if it was elected on popular vote. Our vote would not matter that much. So we would want a weighting based on winning each country to be included as opposed to straight popular vote. The electoral college was supposed to give some weight to the state and some weight to popular vote. I think if the weighting was pushed a little more toward the state, the system would be fine.

 

[The_Catfather]

A couple of the loons in the political thread are talking secession if Hillary wins. Maybe you guys can get together and get something planned so you don't have to deal with those pesky ****** and coloreds anymore.

 

[UK_Dallas]

A couple of the loons in the political thread are talking secession if Hillary wins. Maybe you guys can get together and get something planned so you don't have to deal with those pesky ****** and coloreds anymore.

It is crazy talk right now but in 20 years...maybe not. I think we will get a Republican President by then though. I hear a lot of 'Texit' down here.

 

[Cattoyz]

It should be by popular vote. Local councilmen, mayors, governors, etc are all elected this way. The President should be elected this way also. The Electoral College may have made sense 150 years ago. It makes no sense now.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

It should be by popular vote. Local councilmen, mayors, governors, etc are all elected this way. The President should be elected this way also. The Electoral College may have made sense 150 years ago. It makes no sense now.

Disagree. With popular vote, there would be no reason for Kentucky, or any rural state to be apart of the United States. It's exactly the same issue now as it was when the nation was formed. Each state in our union is a sovereign state. They agreed to come together and form a united states. Why would it be in the interest of small states to do that if they don't have the population to ever be heard? Nothing has changed since the beginning of the nation, and it's unlikely that it ever will. There has to be a weighting for winning a state or it would make no sense for many of our states to be a part of the nation.

 

[Cattoyz]

Disagree. With popular vote, there would be no reason for Kentucky, or any rural state to be apart of the United States. It's exactly the same issue now as it was when the nation was formed. Each state in our union is a sovereign state. They agreed to come together and form a united states. Why would it be in the interest of small states to do that if they don't have the population to ever be heard? Nothing has changed since the beginning of the nation, and it's unlikely that it ever will. There has to be a weighting for winning a state or it would make no sense for many of our states to be a part of the nation.

Huh?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Huh?

I'm not sure what you are confused about. It is the logic behind the electoral college system. It's why we have it to begin with and the same thing is still true today.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

Break down state electoral votes by congressional district and then the 2 senator votes go to the popular vote winner statewide. That would certainly keep liberal states such as Cali and NY from going completely blue. Would also keep many red states from being completely red. Everyone would feel their vote counts using that system.

And then gerrymandering becomes an issue in presidential elections. Go all the way for popular vote.

 

[UKGrad93]

If we get rid of the electoral college, then we may as well disband states and the senate. There would really be no place for them.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Maybe the problem is that minoritiy groups feel so unrepresented and even hated by one party and/or its members that they vote almost exclusively one way. Fix that instead of complaining that "they" decide the winner.

 

[Cattoyz]

If we get rid of the electoral college, then we may as well disband states and the senate. There would really be no place for them.

Why?

 

[UKGrad93]

Why?

Do you really not understand the concept of a representative republic vs a democracy?

 

[JumperJack]

Maybe the problem is that minoritiy groups feel so unrepresented and even hated by one party and/or its members that they vote almost exclusively one way. Fix that instead of complaining that "they" decide the winner.

Why in the hell would they stop voting for people that keep promising them something for nothing?

 

[makersmarkambassador]

yeah, several countries do this and it should be considered here. It's a shame that just over half of the voting population votes. We should really have 80-85% voting rate, considering we're supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.

We're a nation of complainers and whiners

 

[Cattoyz]

Do you really not understand the concept of a representative republic vs a democracy?

If you can't answer the question, just say so.