walksalone Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Nobody is getting crazy or riled up. Not sure where you're coming up with this. We do have control over Washington. We exerted that control last November. That's why Obama was sworn in yesterday and not Romney. What the heck are you talking about, walks? We don't have control, it's called electoral college... Mittens won the popular vote? Gore did in 2000, how'd his 4 years work out? Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It doesn't matter if they care about us. They make laws that directly affect how we live our lives. I'd say shenanigans by those people is worth getting riled up over. So, if you don't care that they don't care about your well being, and you vote to put them in power, thats crazy... This is an indictment of the poor choices we have to vote for, not the voters themselves. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 We don't have control, it's called electoral college... We should get rid of that. 1 Link to comment
KJ. Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 We don't have control, it's called electoral college... We should get rid of that. No way man! #TeamEC Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 We don't have control, it's called electoral college... We should get rid of that. No way man! #TeamEC I've not yet heard a legitimate reason why we should keep the electoral college. 1 president, 1 voter, 1 vote. 1 Link to comment
KJ. Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 We don't have control, it's called electoral college... We should get rid of that. No way man! #TeamEC I've not yet heard a legitimate reason why we should keep the electoral college. 1 president, 1 voter, 1 vote. Because entire regions (like Nebraska) would be completely ignored by politicians. Population of Nebraska: 1.84 million Population of Houston, TX: 2.15 million They're not going to care about a single person in the Midwest/Mountain West, especially those in rural areas. Every policy they could think of would cater towards people living in metropolitan areas because that's how they'll get elected. Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 We don't have control, it's called electoral college... We should get rid of that. No way man! #TeamEC I've not yet heard a legitimate reason why we should keep the electoral college. 1 president, 1 voter, 1 vote. Because entire regions (like Nebraska) would be completely ignored by politicians. Population of Nebraska: 1.84 million Population of Houston, TX: 2.15 million They're not going to care about a single person in the Midwest/Mountain West, especially those in rural areas. Every policy they could think of would cater towards people living in metropolitan areas because that's how they'll get elected. I disagree. When has any politician ever done anything they campaigned on doing? Link to comment
KJ. Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I disagree. When has any politician ever done anything they campaigned on doing? That's not really the point, especially since a lot of the crap they pull in office is probably all just so they don't piss off their own party so they'll get re-elected next time around. What is the point is that in order to get re-elected with a popular vote, they only need to please the 9 most populous states. Based on your comment I'm assuming we can agree that politicians aren't very honest in how they get stuff done, so why would you assume this wouldn't affect that? It would make it much easier to lie and get away with it. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Because entire regions (like Nebraska) would be completely ignored by politicians. Population of Nebraska: 1.84 million Population of Houston, TX: 2.15 million They're not going to care about a single person in the Midwest/Mountain West, especially those in rural areas. Every policy they could think of would cater towards people living in metropolitan areas because that's how they'll get elected. And that would be different than what happens now... how? Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Because entire regions (like Nebraska) would be completely ignored by politicians. Population of Nebraska: 1.84 million Population of Houston, TX: 2.15 million They're not going to care about a single person in the Midwest/Mountain West, especially those in rural areas. Every policy they could think of would cater towards people living in metropolitan areas because that's how they'll get elected. For the presidency only. Why should a Nebraskan's vote for president be worth more than a vote from a voter in any other state? We share the same president and our votes should reflect that reality. Equality for all. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I disagree. When has any politician ever done anything they campaigned on doing? Despite that common belief . . . most politicians do attempt to do what they campaigned on doing. For example: Who cares? It’s a fool’s game to spend too much time analyzing campaign policy proposals. Everyone knows that politicians make all kinds of crazy promises during elections that they jettison as soon as they take office. At least everyone thinks they know that. But it’s not true. In an article for the January/February issue of the Washington Monthly, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein argues that the evidence on this point is clear: “Presidents usually try to enact the policies they advocate during the campaign.” We can all think of exceptions, of course. George H.W. Bush told the country to read his lips — a turn of speech that’s always confused me, incidentally; is lip-reading really so much more accurate than listening? — and then he raised taxes anyway. But such betrayals are not the rule. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/presidents-keep-their-campaign-promises/2011/08/25/gIQAwCA9DQ_blog.html Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 What is the point is that in order to get re-elected with a popular vote, they only need to please the 9 most populous states. Based on your comment I'm assuming we can agree that politicians aren't very honest in how they get stuff done, so why would you assume this wouldn't affect that? It would make it much easier to lie and get away with it. Again, this is for the president only. The House and Senate would remain the same. California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Georgia Michigan What policies do you think the president could campaign on (and conceivably unilaterally enact!) that would get every vote in those states? Link to comment
walksalone Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 We don't have control, it's called electoral college... We should get rid of that. No way man! #TeamEC I've not yet heard a legitimate reason why we should keep the electoral college. 1 president, 1 voter, 1 vote. I can't +1 that enough... I really feel bad for Americans who think they're actually making a difference when they go to the polls for the presidential election. Them voting is like the politicians they rally behind, a big goddamn fraud... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It isn't even necessarily a state by state issue. I believe it would affect their campaigning within those states also. For instance, right now, all campaigns spend a huge amount of time in Ohio. Ohio is a HUGE swing state and as much as I get sick and tired of that one state meaning so much, at least there is a midwestern (rural) state that means something. That forces the candidates to at least speak somewhat to midwesterners. If it goes to a popular vote election, you can totally forget about any candidate spending any time even thinking about anything between Pennsylvania and California. That is, unless you live in Chicago, Minneapolis, Dallas/FW...etc. Right now, roughly 27% of the population lives in the top 10 largest cities. That's only 10 cities (metro areas). Expand that out to the top 20 metro areas and that gets you almost to 40% of the population. Now, you are a campaign manager with limited resources. Where are you going to campaign? Are you going to go to a rural area and drive down roads where you are going to see a couple thousand people in a town the size of Waterloo Iowa or Columbia Missouri? Or, are you going to spend all your time flying from large metro to large metro where you are going to be around millions of voters? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 BTW....of those top 20 metro areas only Chicago, Dallas/FW, Detroit, Minneapolis, and St. Louis is anywhere close to the midwest. Link to comment
Recommended Posts