[jstarett]

What ticked me off was when a few ladies said they voted for Obama because they didn't like how Sarah dressed at the start of her election.

I was like are you really ******* serious?

[jstarett]

if you look at the electoral college, in the early days if a state had 9 electoral votes, and one candidate had 30% of the votes and the other had 70% of the votes. The one who had 30% will get 30% of the electoral votes for that state in this case 3 votes, and the other candidate would get the other 70%, in this case 6. But in todays society, and i'd love to know the who/what/when/where and why, the person with the 70% gets all 9.... last time i checked 70% doesn't equal or come close to 100%

I never knew it was like that... It was my understanding that if you won the majority of the votes from that state you got all the votes.

[fecurtis]

if you look at the electoral college, in the early days if a state had 9 electoral votes, and one candidate had 30% of the votes and the other had 70% of the votes. The one who had 30% will get 30% of the electoral votes for that state in this case 3 votes, and the other candidate would get the other 70%, in this case 6. But in todays society, and i'd love to know the who/what/when/where and why, the person with the 70% gets all 9.... last time i checked 70% doesn't equal or come close to 100%

The electoral college is no way bound to vote in the same degree or proportion as the popular vote for their particular state, although traditionally its what they do.

[fecurtis]

What ticked me off was when a few ladies said they voted for Obama because they didn't like how Sarah dressed at the start of her election.

I was like are you really ******* serious?

lol are you serious?

"The best case against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter"
-Winston Churchill

[syb0rg]

I never knew it was like that... It was my understanding that if you won the majority of the votes from that state you got all the votes.

that's why i'd love to know when it changed... i think our elections would be totally different if they did it the old way.

[syb0rg]

The electoral college is no way bound to vote in the same degree or proportion as the popular vote for their particular state, although traditionally its what they do.

That is why i said i'd love to know when they started the whole 50%+1 = all of the electoral votes.

[jstarett]

lol are you serious?

"The best case against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter"
-Winston Churchill

If you watch her first appearances she was dressed in down to earth clothes but people were going online and ranting and raving about how she was dressing so after that we started seeing her in designer clothes and glasses...

What is wrong with the world today when people running from office gets slammed for shopping at an everyday store like the common folks?

[jstarett]

That is why i said i'd love to know when they started the whole 50%+1 = all of the electoral votes.

In all honesty we should do away with the electoral votes... it should be popularity vote that wins. Just my opinion

[syb0rg]

In all honesty we should do away with the electoral votes... it should be popularity vote that wins. Just my opinion

Disagree, you get new york city, LA, Chicago all to vote one way it's pretty much a done cause. I use to think the same way until i started looking @ city populations.

the most accurate and fair way is percentage of the votes = percentage of E. College votes.

[Username00089]

Please...Care to answer the question I asked? Or would you rather avoid it?

I'm not going to answer a question to something I have no opinion on. You ask
like I'm defending someone else. I was clearly only looking to make fun of Palin.
Then you threw a pair of testicles on her.

[GenTsoChicken]

I'm surprise she's smart enough to use a BB. I would have thought she bve more of a Fisher-Price Elmo's World: Talking Cell Phone type of user.

[WhoolioPreludee]

She's not. She just wants to pretend she's competent enough. In case you all forgot remember her argument about foreign policy and her response was that alaska was close to russia. She's as smart as a bottle full of bolts, and still the bolts may be smarter. Bulldog with lipstick, maybe she got that right. Female dog with lipstick that is

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[jnmurphyjr]

Wow that was a fun ride. I was just looking to post who the *uck cares. Really.
Then political science and college english classes got thrown in. I'm going request college credits from this thread.

[syb0rg]

She's not. She just wants to pretend she's competent enough. In case you all forgot remember her argument about foreign policy and her response was that alaska was close to russia. She's as smart as a bottle full of bolts, and still the bolts may be smarter. Bulldog with lipstick, maybe she got that right. Female dog with lipstick that is

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I'm surprise she's smart enough to use a BB. I would have thought she bve more of a Fisher-Price Elmo's World: Talking Cell Phone type of user.

It's funny you two have to bump your gums about the intelligence of any politician. This is single handedly the reason we can talk about politics or the political system because someone has to talk in a negativity frame of mind. And in an insulting format.... you know what opinions are like..

you didn't hear anyone here blast on the currant administration staff in any way, shape fashion or form.

[mvymvy]

that's why i'd love to know when it changed... i think our elections would be totally different if they did it the old way.

That "old way" didn't happen.

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district.

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state�s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of �flyover� states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to �battleground� states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See NationalPopularVote.com

[mvymvy]

Disagree, you get new york city, LA, Chicago all to vote one way it's pretty much a done cause. I use to think the same way until i started looking @ city populations.

the most accurate and fair way is percentage of the votes = percentage of E. College votes.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down in name recognition as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all rules, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

[mvymvy]

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state's bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.