POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

[COphinphan89]

They base it on how many congressman your state has which is based on population but yeah it's an outdated, useless method. If you were an Obama supporter in Texas or a Romney supporter in California then there was really no reason for you to show up to vote for a presidential candidate. Most states aren't even campaigned in anymore because It would just be a waste of time and money.

[tylerdolphin]

So theoretically if the election is decided by less than 10 electoral votes, one asshat can basically go rogue and spin the election the other way?

[Valandui]

The founding fathers put the electoral college into place because they were scared as **** of the people. As wealthy and well educated landowners who largely despised the common man, they wanted a buffer zone in case the people elected someone they found completely objectionable. So they created the concept of electors -- presuming the electors would be wealthy landowners like they were -- and gave those electors the ability to vote for whomever they wanted no matter what the state they came from had done.

That was the idea, anyway. I only know of one instance -- there might be others -- of an elector changing his vote, and that was when James Monroe ran the table and won every state. One elector felt that only Washington should win every vote so he defied his state and voted for the other guy. To this day I'm pretty sure only Washington has won every elector.

Anyway, yeah. It's a stupid system, and in my view has always been one. Among other things, it overvalues the small states, since every state -- no matter how small -- gets at least three electoral votes. And it renders huge swaths of the country irrelevant, and therefore ignored, every presidential election cycle.

This is all true, but it does make the small states have some say in who the President is. Otherwise, New York and LA are basically imposing their will on the rest of the country. The system is still ****ed up, but I'm more concerned about how you're considered unelectable if you don't win Iowa or New Hampshire in the primaries than this.

[TheWalrus]

So theoretically if the election is decided by less than 10 electoral votes, one asshat can basically go rogue and spin the election the other way?

Every elector can vote for whoever they want. Now, they way they get chosen that doesn't tend to happen. But they're all at liberty to go rogue.

[TheWalrus]

This is all true, but it does make the small states have some say in who the President is. Otherwise, New York and LA are basically imposing their will on the rest of the country.

Imposing their will? Let's just go to a straight up and down popular vote. Every person in every state gets an equal say. As it is, a vote in Wyoming is worth 300+ percent of an average vote relative to the electoral college while a vote in California or Texas is only worth in the low 80s of an average vote. I find it hard to see a way in which that's fair.

One person. One vote. May the best man win. No more of this haranguing over how 10,000 people in Ohio get to decide who the next president is. It's ridiculous.

The system is still ****ed up, but I'm more concerned about how you're considered unelectable if you don't win Iowa or New Hampshire in the primaries than this.

This I agree with. I'm not sure how to fix it but it's a ridiculous system, especially since both states are like 99% white.

[Dolphins9954]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



I voted against evil and myself for sheriff.

[ROADRUNNER]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Spesh]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Speaking of .gifs, i desperately need one of Karl Rove looking off camera clutching a pen in his hand frantically crunching the numbers while on fox news.

[rob19]

Speaking of .gifs, i desperately need one of Karl Rove looking off camera clutching a pen in his hand frantically crunching the numbers while on fox news.

If you can find me the video I could probably do it for you

[NY8123]

The founding fathers put the electoral college into place because they were scared as **** of the people. As wealthy and well educated landowners who largely despised the common man, they wanted a buffer zone in case the people elected someone they found completely objectionable. So they created the concept of electors -- presuming the electors would be wealthy landowners like they were -- and gave those electors the ability to vote for whomever they wanted no matter what the state they came from had done.

That was the idea, anyway. I only know of one instance -- there might be others -- of an elector changing his vote, and that was when James Monroe ran the table and won every state. One elector felt that only Washington should win every vote so he defied his state and voted for the other guy. To this day I'm pretty sure only Washington has won every elector.

Anyway, yeah. It's a stupid system, and in my view has always been one. Among other things, it overvalues the small states, since every state -- no matter how small -- gets at least three electoral votes. And it renders huge swaths of the country irrelevant, and therefore ignored, every presidential election cycle.

and there in lies the difference between a republic (the Untied States) and a Democracy.