The Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two.
Madison argued VIGOROUSLY against creating either a controlling majority; or (this is important) the problems that can equally be caused by too many divisive “factions”. (Madison actually called it the “mischief of Factions”).
I get the purpose of the Electoral College and see its virtues (acts as a filter against demagoguery and mob politics, etc. - clearly didn’t work this year, though), but @Drew1411 makes a good point that has bugged me for several elections: the fact that so many votes don’t count due to the “path to 270” state-based model. And that in turn demotivates a lot of voters - if you’re a Republican in true-blue California, why make the effort to cast a vote at all? Isn’t it pointless? (I don’t think it is, but you can see why many would think so.)
I still like the idea of having some state-oriented balance to the popular vote, but would like to see the popular vote for President be given more authority so that the vote is more reflective of the nation as a whole (it being a national election, and all).
In short, I’d like to reform the EC in light of the times, but have no good suggestions on what to do. .
Wrong once again. I cited the latest poll. Would you rather use polls from a month ago? No of course not. Also, did I say “every poll” Nope. But he is catching up in other polls as well.
Edit: It’s also big news that this is the first time he has been ahead of the pants suit. I think that deserved mention.
I never mentioned Texas so you are wrong for a third time. If I would have said he was ahead in Texas then of course you could correct me. But the point was in the latest poll he has caught Hillary. I then mentioned Florida and Ohio as two states to watch to see if he was catching up electorally.
I really like the Congressional district approach. Instead of winner take all and the laziness of taking certain states for granted, candidates could get to victory by competing all over the place and especially in swing districts. It’s a damn fine idea.
I never drew any conclusions did I? In fact, I said that it is still too early but things look better for Trump than they did.
People…like you and a couple of others on this site tie your emotions to the campaign. Taking credit away from the candidate that you do not like. Granted I don’t like the lying pants suit, but I do give her credit…no one can lie like she can. The FBI can’t even catch her apparently.
Edit: I’m not very fond of Trump either. They both suck
Wrong for a third time? On the fact that there is a poll showing there is a tie in Texas. That is a fact… nothing to be wrong about. You are the most annoying person to debate with.
No, I’m trying to be objective about the polling. Clinton has, and remains ahead. As I’ve stated multiple times, that is only a reflection of the current race. Don’t go waving around one poll showing otherwise and claim we’re all wrong. There is plenty to go… as EVERYBODY knows.
Now this is where you or some other more political junky guys have to chime in… how could that reform actually get done? I don’t think there is an apetite for it, just like how I think there should be A LOT of reform to the primary process… but it doesn’t seem to change. Any idea how it could? (honest question)
Probably because there was not much to debate about the information that I laid down. But…you tried to find stuff and you just couldn’t. I see how that might annoy you.
But, you shouldn’t let this site bother you…it’s all for fun my friend.
Try hard to keep up. It was the first poll which showed Trump ahead. I think that’s news.
You are trying to say that I think Trump is winning and that’s not what I said. I simply mentioned ONE poll that is significant…(here it comes again) because it was THE FIRST poll which showed him in the lead so far.
Wrap your brain around that Drew it’s an easy concept and you are a bright person.
other people’s opinions on things don’t matter because Zeb says so! For future reference I’ll be sure to ask Zeb if it’s ok to give my opinion on something. Oh wise one, please guide me.
I don’t think you can go purely on geographical region as you’re showing, the districts with more population still have to have more influence, which is the intent of the EC (I believe… historians correct me). I just don’t like that they break it down by state level, I think they could go further with the intention of making people’s votes count where previously (any non swing state) they wouldn’t.
.