As if this is something new? It's yesterday's news. Protip: It was outrageous 20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90 etc...years ago.
But now, it's thinkprogress important!
It's far more outrageous right now since a presidential vote is equivalent to that of 16 senators and 73 House members at once. How you can scoff outrage at this and claim some sort of false equivalency when we're talking about the most important single office in the world is mindblowing. This should never be considered politics as usual because it isn't.
I see you didn't read my link.
It's completely up to the states to determine how they want to allocate their electoral votes.
What the is the point of even voting?
lol GOP
Maine and Nebraska already split their EV's via the congressional district model.
Why not have the state legislatures just give all the electoral votes to the Republican party autmoatically in states they control? I mean, it's up to them, right?
not a bad point, tbh
When your representative democracy is Completely gerrymandered to ensure a predetermined outcome, it's not really a representative democracy as it only representative of arbitrary lines drawn for political advantage. All it will take are a few presidential victories where the winner looses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote and people will be up in arms.
Only happened once in the last 100 years. Happened quite a few times in the 1800's.
Considering how polorized the electorate is, If like this passes we'll be seeing it much more frequently.
That's my point. like this has been passed for quite awhile now. But now, we're super outraged.
It will be interesting to see if Biden can pull the minority vote like the big O did.
Biden will run? Doubt it...
No way Biden doesn't try to run. He's had a sniff of that irresistable power crack.
Maybe it'll serve as a catalyst for change. People generally don't see it on the congressional level as the winner wins he popular vote. It a foregone conclusion the R or D will win the popular vote based on he controlling party's politically drawn boundaries. But when it's on a national level and we have more and more elections where the newly elected POTUS looses the popular vote, people are going to start paying attention.
I think he'll run and any D is going to pull the minority vote for years to come. Maybe not blacks by 95%, but it will be a significant majority.
ME does it? how many electoral votes?
MI, WI, OH, FL, PA have way more than enough to rig any Pres election horribly opposite of the popular vote.
Of course, little es TB, CC, etc don't care, EVEN CHEER FOR ELECTION RIGGING, when the election is rigged in favor of Repug assholes. They'd be "outraged" if the Dems were doing it.
==============
In the majority of the United States, one candidate gets all of the state’s electoral votes. That holds true whether the state has 55 electoral votes to give, like California, or a scant 3 votes to offer, like Montana. Two states, however, don’t have to go the all-or-nothing route: Nebraska and Maine. Those states have opted to use the Congressional District Method, where electoral votes are distributed according to the state’s congressional districts instead of the state as a whole.
Although Nebraska and Maine adopted this method in 1992 and 1972, respectively, it didn’t really matter until recently, since each state’s congressional districts have historically voted the same way. The first time either of the states split votes was in 2008, when Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district, Omaha, went for Obama and the rest of the state went for Republican candidate John McCain.
But why use the split method when no one else does? First of all, there’s precedent. Way back in the 1804 (Thomas Jefferson), 1812 (James Madison) and 1820 (James Monroe) elections, Massachusetts used the Congressional District Method. Maine seceded from Massachusetts to become its own state in 1820 but kept their split votes method until 1828.
This served everyone just fine until 1968, when people got their feathers ruffled about the Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace race. Reformists thought that a three-way contest made electoral votes an unfair way to decide the state, because a candidate could win the whole pot of electoral votes even if he had just 34 percent of the state’s popular vote (if the other two candidates split 33 percent/33 percent or some variation thereof). Therefore, the electoral votes weren’t necessarily a good indicator of how the popular vote actually felt. Sound like a familiar issue?
As a result of those ruffled feathers, a bill was passed in 1969 (but wasn’t actually used until the ‘72 election) that would allow Maine to split their votes by congressional district as they had more than 100 years earlier. Nebraska followed suit 20 years later. Officials have tried at least three times since then to overturn the Congressional District Method, but so far, Cornhuskers seem content to keep things separate.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/13017...#ixzz2IvQwRbZc
I think this administration will be too lame duck (as they normally are after two terms) where it simply is a waste of time to even try running... just IMO.
It just blows me away that the single most important election in the world becoming a complete and total farce is thought of as politics as usual and no big deal here.
My total disdain for both major political parties grows by the day.
They don't care about disenfranchised you. They work for the 1% and to increase their own wealth.
What difference does it make?
Sincerely,
Hillary
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
