I think this is the effect of internet comments, it makes the nation seem more polarized than it is. There are people on the conservative sites talking about how nuts Democrats are going to go when Obama loses. I think everything will be fine. I am not rooting for just an electoral college victory but it is nice to know that President Obama could get his victory without winning the popular vote. Besides even in scenarios where President Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote he would essentially need to have 50 percent of the votes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
I think this is the effect of internet comments, it makes the nation seem more polarized than it is. There are people on the conservative sites talking about how nuts Democrats are going to go when Obama loses. I think everything will be fine. I am not rooting for just an electoral college victory but it is nice to know that President Obama could get his victory without winning the popular vote. Besides even in scenarios where President Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote he would essentially need to have 50 percent of the votes.
Black Mamba
Member
What about each state gives out its votes by proportion.
Have 20 votes? Obama win 60% in the state, he gets 12 votes, Romney 8.
I think this could be a fair compromise. Forces candidates to care about all the states, drive up turnout, etc.
Have 20 votes? Obama win 60% in the state, he gets 12 votes, Romney 8.
I think this could be a fair compromise. Forces candidates to care about all the states, drive up turnout, etc.
So christian of you
Hey, an Ohioan wanting to get rid of the electoral college is being entirely altruistic.
Yuck.
Well I guess the polls will only just start to reflect anything gained off of Monday's debate tomorrow. But if we have to settle for 68.1% going into election day I think those are acceptable odds.
speculawyer
Member
It would be fine if everyone's vote got equal representation. But the fact that a vote in Wyoming is so much more important than a vote in California is bullshit. Take away 2 electoral votes from every state and we'd be fine.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Interesting that Obama's up more in Virginia than in Colorado, per 538 - of course it's such a small margin (51% in VA, 49.5% in CO) that it doesn't really matter.
el retorno
Member
States can do this. The constitution says nothing on how the states need to distribute their votes in the electoral college. It in fact states nothing about "the people" voting for president. The only people who vote for president are the electors. Everybody else just votes for them.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
That's a big if. Don't forget tomorrow there is the potential of a Trump card being played. The polls that haven't even come out yet are already too old...damn.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's not just the internet though. These people go to work listening to far right radio, come home and watch Fox News, then get a bunch of chain emails peddling bullshit. It's a constant level of propaganda and insanity. They literally believe Obama has 0% chance of winning; if he wins, he stole it.
Given the rapid rise of right wing militias and hate groups it wouldn't be surprising for them to only get more desperate and violent. Remember that huge ass bomb that was planted near a MLK parade? It didn't go off, but the message was quite clear
Aaron Strife
Banned
Lol. Trump tells everyone that the Obamas had a rough patch and suddenly the election swings to Romney. Yeah okay.
Ahahahahahaha you really think filing for divorce in 2000 is going to be a game changer?
jamesinclair
Banned
How is that a problem?
More people, more representation.
What we need is to give the top ten states a bonus senator too.
obama needs to be up more in virginia. not that he can bank on it, but colorado early voting started this week, so he can build something of a lead before election day. virginia all comes down to election day, so he needs some underlying support going into november 6.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
No one really knows anything at this point.
Eh, he's up a decent bit off his worst day. He was up a couple points yesterday, then down a couple today. No real momentum one way or the other.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
The idea is that regardless of population that the entire country can be represented.
Hypothetically speaking, what if Texas became a huge breeding ground for republicans and that state alone could win a presidential election just based on popular vote. Would you be ok with that?
That's the entire idea behind the electoral college.
el retorno
Member
We're the United States and a Federal system not a unitary power system.
Rural America counts.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Since when?
That makes too much sense. It's the Presidency of the USA not freakin' Ohio!
Do you really think Trump has anything of that caliber?
CaptainSchwann
Member
Gamechanger: Trump's surprise is that he's endorsing Obama.
el retorno
Member
Nate has Romney at 50.5 percent there. Its pink now on his chart
Hobbestetrician
Member
I know this isn't exactly how it works but winning one of those and losing the other is something I would take at this point (obviously would prefer it to be Virginia).
Aaron Strife
Banned
If that's how the majority of the country votes, sure. And it's not like the Democrats in Texas wouldn't still be voting either, and unlike under the EC, their votes would count.
I already see the Senate as a solution to states being represented.
Yeah but nate's forecast is a prediction of who will win once all the votes are tallied. It's interesting to me that he has Virginia higher, if only slightly, than Colorado.
There is nothing on Obama of that caliber, the guy is cleaner than Mr Clean ffs. I mean shit.
Officerrob
Banned
Stop. Just stop
Aaron Strife
Banned
Still not something I'd like to count on. I'd rather we pad margins.
ryutaro's mama
Member
ah, okay. i guess that's where 'state fundamentals' comes into play.
Absolutely. If we see a definite one- or two-point bump in swing state polling over the next thirteen days (something that could be difficult to confirm, true), those atoms in my already-icy veins are going to stop moving altogether.
That's a good point. We could also start adding seats to the House of Representatives again which would allow the reformed Electoral College to reflect population even better.
But really, the Electoral College creates a needless space between the a person's vote and the election of the President. This has little effect on me, but I think it promotes cynicism for people less steeped in the political culture. Doing away with the Electoral College would make the horse race less interesting, but that seems like a small price to pay.
Also, I don't buy that rural areas would be completely ignored. THe parties have become extremely good at approaching 50-50 splits and rural America would be a tempting target if your opponent is ignoring it entirely. And in any case, small states would still have the entire structure of Congress to work in their favor.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
That's 1/3 of our entire federal political system. Should congress be weighed the same in that situation? The majority of our congressional reps be from Texas?
Aaron Strife
Banned
No because like the Senate, the House is representative of the states.
The president however is (theoretically) representative of every citizen of America. Yet every four years they jockey to be the president of ohio
However it would indeed be interesting if Congressional districts were split without regards to state lines.
IrishNinja
Member
pretty much the most damaging tool in his arsenal
I have no trousers left to stool. I actually need to wash my trousers so I can continually stool them until November 6.
CaptainSchwann
Member
Nothing more damning to a candidate's character than an endorsement from Trump.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Which is more accurate, the NowCast or the Nov.6th?
If they were to do a fifty-state tour, I'd also love to hear all of the hokey, fake accent adjustments the candidates could contort their vocal cords into having.
Also:
http://www.inquisitr.com/372576/tru...t-is-not-being-taken-too-seriously-by-anyone/
Also:
http://www.inquisitr.com/372576/tru...t-is-not-being-taken-too-seriously-by-anyone/
el retorno
Member
The house is not representative of the states. Its the people's house.
The now-cast really means nothing. Its just what the election would look like if it where held today. But its not, its on nov. 6. I'd stick with that.
I'd like to see just how far Mitt would have to contort himself if he had to pander to every state.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
GAF...slow down...breathe.
700+ posts in one day!! We are going to need another thread before the election!
As if Obama would be any better. Every politician truly makes themselves look the worst and most pandering on the campaign stump in faraway American lands.
700+ posts in one day!! We are going to need another thread before the election!
As if Obama would be any better. Every politician truly makes themselves look the worst and most pandering on the campaign stump in faraway American lands.
To be clear, you're saying you'd want a large majority of the country to have relatively little power in the federal government just because that large majority happens to reside in just one state?
I've never really gotten this. States aren't magic. We want protection for minority interests, so it makes sense to want a sufficiently large minority to have some sort of veto power. But the Senate and the courts already put checks on what a majority can do.
Our country's most shameful example of lookism.
Black Mamba
Member
joke? California = Delaware.
No thank you.
As I said, every state should agree to give out their votes via proportion of vote.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
So in theory the president is supposed to represent every citizen of America but theoretically they could win without ever paying attention to certain states if they knew they could win by only having the majority of other states vote for him/her.
Could it be assumed that these states would receive preferential treatment because of that fact?
Edit:
I like this idea.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked