is it time to exchange the electoral college for the popular vote

is it time to exchange the electoral college for the popular vote

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
So Mutt... you were wrong that

1) Rural states are over represented
2) That OH's rural areas are over represented relative to the urban population, in reality it is the reverse.
3) While sparsely populated states are over represented, many of them are very BLUE states.... Hawaii, Vermont, NH, Maine, RI, Delaware
 
cure the cheating In elections and then see how well the electoral college works.


there is a reason it used to work fine ad now doesn't.

Its called cheating in elections to keep certain voters from getting represented.
 
you have to make sure these areas are actually representing the people as they are in the districts.


Gerrymandering and voting laws designed to shut people OUT of the system effect this whole issue.


You want to Fix the system?


FIRST you have to know how it actually will operate without fucking cheaters destroying it and making it less effective.



Do you clean your car before you replace the engine or after?


First you get it running like its designed and THEN you clean it as needed huh
 
Voting is not going to fix anything. The only thing that will work is if Americans go get their guns.

But first ask baby jesus if it's the right thing to do. He'll say yes cause he's on America's side!
 
which is why he whipped the moneychangers and NOT the hungry children who suffered due to the money changers greed
 
Superfreak said:
So Mutt... you were wrong that

1) Rural states are over represented
2) That OH's rural areas are over represented relative to the urban population, in reality it is the reverse.
3) While sparsely populated states are over represented, many of them are very BLUE states.... Hawaii, Vermont, NH, Maine, RI, Delaware
Click to expand...
You're delusional and sounding like PiMP....in love with your own irrational voice.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because duffus the #of electoral votes a state has is equal to the #of representatives +senators giving over representation to the less populated states.

For example Wyoming has a electoral vote distribution of around 400,000 people to each electoral vote where as California has around 800,000 peope to each electoral vote. So the electoral college does give disproportionate representation to rural/less populated States.


http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/05/basics-how-overrepresented-are-rural.html
http://progressivevalues.blogspot.com/2005/10/electoral-college-is-over.html
Click to expand...


Meant to mention as well... the bias is blatant in your two links above.

From the second....

Little Montana, with a population of 926,865, has three electoral votes, which means that one electoral vote represents 308,955 persons. And little Idaho, with 4 electoral votes, has a population of 1,393,292 persons, which means that one electoral vote represents 348,250 persons. Many other small states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah , and others with smaller populations which are likely to vote republican are over-represented in the electoral college.
Click to expand...

Funny how it doesn't mention, little DC, little NH, little Maine, little RI, little HI, little VT.... I wonder why that is?
 
Darla said:
Mott I only thanked this post for his first point, not his second.
Click to expand...

The second is entirely accurate. Not once has Mutt supported his assertions with actual data. He posts biased articles that show the conservative states with small populations but ignores all the liberal/blue states that have the exact same situation.

He calls sparsely populated states 'rural' despite the fact that most of their populations are centered in urban/suburban parts of the state.

He clearly has no clue what he is talking about. he is just rambling because he got embarrassed when I spanked him with the ACTUAL data from Ohio that proved him wrong.
 
Superfreak said:
The second is entirely accurate. Not once has Mutt supported his assertions with actual data. He posts biased articles that show the conservative states with small populations but ignores all the liberal/blue states that have the exact same situation.

He calls sparsely populated states 'rural' despite the fact that most of their populations are centered in urban/suburban parts of the state.

He clearly has no clue what he is talking about. he is just rambling because he got embarrassed when I spanked him with the ACTUAL data from Ohio that proved him wrong.
Click to expand...

That's not how I saw it...but far be it from me to interfere in your fantasies about spanking Mott!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top