You do realize, the guy you hate so much, was a life long Dem, right?
Notice he didnt win an election in Texas until he got an R next to his name right?
You do realize, the guy you hate so much, was a life long Dem, right?
What are your preferred qualifications for someone being allowed to vote?
The dumb bitch should have campaigned on the rules that were in place, instead of talking to her idiot fan base
Because the values of NY, Texas and California aren't representative of the people of say Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont etc etc etc.Why is that a bad thing? It's people, right? People each get one vote, as It should be, who gives a shit where they live?
Jesus christ, why is this so hard to understand? We all get it, CALI and NY do not speak for the entire country. So unless you truly believe all the other states do not deserve to have an opinion than the entire argument is pointless.
If you ARE saying that no states deserve a say except CA and NY than you are a jackass and noone cares what your opinion is.
A pure popular vote doesnt work.
If you want to fix the system fix the gerrymandering and the election rules within your state.
If you are in a BLUE state and mad that you lost you need to realize you did your part. YOUR state agrees with you, problem is the rest DONT. Unless you get the rest of the STATES to agree you will always lose.
And NO, we are not going to agree to a system that lets Californias illegal voters win the election for them.
Because the values of NY, Texas and California aren't representative of the people of say Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont etc etc etc.
Who gives a shit about values? Is this a democracy? Does every vote count the same? It's a super simple logical paradox - you can't call a pure democracy a system in which each vote doesn't count the same, period.
Seems reasonable.
It's amazing how upset some people get about the idea of every person's vote counting equally.
I think it should be based on how much tax you pay.
They do count the same, people just don't realize it. People believe they are directly voting for the president when they are voting for the guy who actually votes for the president.Who gives a shit about values? Is this a democracy? Does every vote count the same? It's a super simple logical paradox - you can't call a pure democracy a system in which each vote doesn't count the same, period.
The EC needs to be tweaked in order to get rid of "winner takes all" stuff in states, but it shouldn't be totally abolished. The reason it should be tweaked is to encourage voting in states, and I've said this before: If you are a Democrat in Texas, there's virtually no point in engaging in the political process. If you are a Republican in California, there's virtually no point in engaging in the political process. This should be discouraged, bringing people out to vote. Encourage them to be involved, as every vote matters in how much your candidate wins by. It forces everyone to have a little more skin in the game.
However, there needs to be some protections for smaller, less populated states. It's not a red/blue thing, it's about ensuring the representation of people who don't live in major population centers. The least populated states include VT, a historically blue state, and WY, a historically red state. Both of these places deserve to have their interests preserved, whereas if we went to a system totally based on the popular vote, most of the campaigning and focus would be on winning cities in CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, etc. The small states would be afterthoughts.
Where things really need to be shaken up is in the primary process, and if you care about democracy, this is probably what you should be most interested in. The first primary for both parties is IA. About a week later, they go to NH. The race for delegates is heavily underway at this point. Then, the Democrats go to NV while the Republicans go to SC. The parties switch places for the next round of voting, and by this point, a strong frontrunner has usually emerged. As long as that candidate holds steady through Super Tuesday, the rest is mostly academic. The point? IA, NH, NV, and SC have way too much power in deciding the fate of Presidential elections. I'd be much more comfortable with another approach.
It's not a democracy, just for that reason. Democratic republic, again, just for that reason.Who gives a shit about values? Is this a democracy? Does every vote count the same? It's a super simple logical paradox - you can't call a pure democracy a system in which each vote doesn't count the same, period.
Why do you think this?It does need to be eliminated. But Hillary is only saying that because she can't get over her loss to Trump....
we aren't asking you to agree with it. We are telling you that it is what will happen. Cali and NY have all the money and power. You drastically overestimate the power your broke, insolvent, and backwards state has. We are telling you how its going to be, and if you don't like it, feel free to leave. Trust me, you need us a lot more than we need you.Jesus christ, why is this so hard to understand? We all get it, CALI and NY do not speak for the entire country. So unless you truly believe all the other states do not deserve to have an opinion than the entire argument is pointless.
If you ARE saying that no states deserve a say except CA and NY than you are a jackass and noone cares what your opinion is.
A pure popular vote doesnt work.
If you want to fix the system fix the gerrymandering and the election rules within your state.
If you are in a BLUE state and mad that you lost you need to realize you did your part. YOUR state agrees with you, problem is the rest DONT. Unless you get the rest of the STATES to agree you will always lose.
And NO, we are not going to agree to a system that lets Californias illegal voters win the election for them.
we aren't asking you to agree with it. We are telling you that it is what will happen. Cali and NY have all the money and power. You drastically overestimate the power your broke, insolvent, and backwards state has. We are telling you how its going to be, and if you don't like it, feel free to leave. Trust me, you need us a lot more than we need you.
Why do you think this?
While I agree on the points you're making about her character, I meant why you thought that the EC should be abolished? I think it needs to be tweaked from its current state, but the principle of having representation from the states instead of just the major population centers seems pretty reasonable.Why do you ask? Mainly though because she is an opportunist. I realize she has mentioned the electoral college before but it was in the context of a democrat losing the election to a republican. I dont see Hillary as being for anything much at all for the right reasons. She is no better than the average republican in this regard.