R
rlg94086
Guest
No thanks. Been there. Deltassled corn in the summer. I will only visit.You should move to Nebraska!
No thanks. Been there. Deltassled corn in the summer. I will only visit.You should move to Nebraska!
Okay California has 55 electoral votes.No, I don’t see where it’s unfair, but I would prefer that all the states divvied up its votes according to district rather than winner take all. However, that is each state’s decision.
Okay…it’s California’s decision. If you are a citizen of California, try to get it changed.Okay California has 55 electoral votes.
In California, Team Orange beat team Yellow by one vote so team Orange gets all 55 electoral votes.
I think that’s kinda unfair
I just used California as an example they have over here in Michigan too.Okay…it’s California’s decision. If you are a citizen of California, try to get it changed.
What they have currently decided is that they would give all their electoral votes to the national popular vote. So, if you are a Californian and the majority of Californians voted Team Orange, all the votes could go to Team Yellow.
huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/jerry-brown-californias-electoral_n_922167.html
We are a nation of states with some areas that are very densely populated. If we did away with the Electoral College system, candidates would only campaign in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami, Washington DC and Boston, etc.I just used California as an example they have over here in Michigan too.
What I am saying is if Michigan votes team Yellow, than yellow gets all 17 of the electoral votes.
But if California votes team Orange than team Orange get’s all 55 electoral votes. Which in my opinion is unfair.
They should just do it by popular vote I don’t see what the problem with that is.
First of all the candidates already do that.We are a nation of states with some areas that are very densely populated. If we did away with the Electoral College system, candidates would only campaign in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami, Washington DC and Boston, etc.
Mind you, it would save the candidates a lot of time. Who cares about the voters in the smaller metro areas?
Nope. I don’t see where its unfair. If the majority of Californians vote for a candidate, and they send all the electoral votes to the Electoral College, then basically it is California casting its vote for the candidate. We are not a direct democracy. We don’t need to have everything based on the popular vote.First of all the candidates already do that.
Second, We should all have a voice in the Government the Electoral College is already a flawed system the fact that they don’t take everyone’s vote into consideration. If one Candidate wins by one vote they get all of the Electoral Votes.
Do you see where that’s unfair?
I mean in 2000 the majority of the people wanted Gore the be President and they didn’t get him.
How can it be a Democracy if the people don’t rule?!
When they campaign in Michigan it’s only to make it seem like our state is importantNope. I don’t see where its unfair. If the majority of Californians vote for a candidate, and they send all the electoral votes to the Electoral College, then basically it is California casting its vote for the candidate. We are not a direct democracy. We don’t need to have everything based on the popular vote.
And, as far as your claim that candidates already only campaign in major metropolitan areas, I believe that people in Iowa and New Hampshire may beg to differ.![]()
Where in the Constitution does the word “democracy” exist?First of all the candidates already do that.
Second, We should all have a voice in the Government the Electoral College is already a flawed system the fact that they don’t take everyone’s vote into consideration. If one Candidate wins by one vote they get all of the Electoral Votes.
Do you see where that’s unfair?
I mean in 2000 the majority of the people wanted Gore the be President and they didn’t get him.
How can it be a Democracy if the people don’t rule?!
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the president elected by both coasts. There are those of us who live in fly-over country who matter just as much. The founding fathers gave us a very good form of government if we have the sense to keep it. And once again, when all the recounting was done, Bush got the majority of the votes in Florida. Go back and check.First of all the candidates already do that.
Second, We should all have a voice in the Government the Electoral College is already a flawed system the fact that they don’t take everyone’s vote into consideration. If one Candidate wins by one vote they get all of the Electoral Votes.
Do you see where that’s unfair?
I mean in 2000 the majority of the people wanted Gore the be President and they didn’t get him.
How can it be a Democracy if the people don’t rule?!
Agree with this point. If not for the electoral college, we would have the president elected by California and New York…you know what that means. It may be a flawed system but it does prevent us from having a couple of heavily populated urban areas determine the fate of a very diverse population.I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the president elected by both coasts. There are those of us who live in fly-over country who matter just as much. The founding fathers gave us a very good form of government if we have the sense to keep it. And once again, when all the recounting was done, Bush got the majority of the votes in Florida. Go back and check.
I like Ron Paul’s libertarianism. It encourages personal responsibility and accountability for personal choices. Unfortunately, the public doesn’t want true social justice for personal choices. It’s too easy for the public to keep dreaming that there’s some sort of justice when taxes are raised on those who are more likely to handle their pleasure, only to be given to those who more likely can’t handle their pleasure. If people can’t resist temptation, then let’s create a clean society rather than continue the injustice of raising taxes on the innocent. The bankruptcy of democracy must eventually occur on our current path. The bigoted media doesn’t want people to consider this truth.I think we will regret not listening to Ron Pauls words one of these days.
youtube.com/watch?v=BDvaTqLlZlA
I love Bill O’Reilly’s comment when politicians speak of utopias where everyone “gets a fair shot” and “does their fair share” and “gets an equal education.”I like Ron Paul’s libertarianism. It encourages personal responsibility and accountability for personal choices. Unfortunately, the public doesn’t want true social justice for personal choices. It’s too easy for the public to keep dreaming that there’s some sort of justice when taxes are raised on those who can handle their pleasure, only to be given to those who can’t handle their pleasure. If people can’t resist temptation, then let’s create a clean society rather than continue the injustice of raising taxes on the innocent. The bigoted media doesn’t want people to consider this truth.
MEANWHILE, “our” Senators and Representatives write laws that exempt themselves from those very laws that impact us!I love Bill O’Reilly’s comment when politicians speak of utopias where everyone “gets a fair shot” and “does their fair share” and “gets an equal education.”
QUIT CHASING LEPRECHAUNS!
You’re right, few if any pols have the courage to speak out but then do you blame them? Paul Ryan came up with a courageous approach to our bloated entitlements and was immediately portrayed throwing granny off a cliff…when in fact his plan had NOTHING which would have done anything remotely close. The politicians lie and the media ignores it.
That being said, I cannot accept Mr Paul’s anti-Semitic rhetoric or the theory that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. He too shares some illusions about human nature.
Lisa