EARLY VOTING RIGHT HERE. POLLS WILL BE OPEN UNTIL NOV. 4TH MIDNIGHT.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He dropped out yesterday.https://www.google.com/search?q=Kan....69i57j0l7.25999j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8Kanye West.
I hear he is already making a dent. He probably wont win but I like his chances for 2024. But I think Candace Owen's is running 2024 and I like her.
Kanye will never be president of the United States of America.Kanye West.
I hear he is already making a dent. He probably wont win but I like his chances for 2024. But I think Candace Owen's is running 2024 and I like her.
Did you think Trump would be?Kanye will never be president of the United States of America.
He dropped out yesterday.https://www.google.com/search?q=Kan....69i57j0l7.25999j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yes. A majority disliked Hillary and a lot of Americans wanted a fresh approach that didn't involve a career politician.Did you think Trump would be?
HRC won majority of votes and for reasons unclear did not work battleground states hard enough.Yes. A majority disliked Hillary and a lot of Americans wanted a fresh approach that didn't involve a career politician.
HRC won majority of votes and for reasons unclear did not work battleground states hard enough.
You really think this nation would elect a mentally ill narcissist with no experience or knowledge of the issues as President?Kanye West.
I hear he is already making a dent. He probably wont win but I like his chances for 2024. But I think Candace Owen's is running 2024 and I like her.
If you looked at where Hillary got her votes it was mainly along both coast. This is exactly why the founding fathers set up the electoral college.HRC won majority of votes and for reasons unclear did not work battleground states hard enough.
I was surprised, but the history was there. The conditions from post reconstruction and the last twenty five years are similar. Highly charged and politicized county, not to mention a civil war, industrial revolution came faster than the country could keep up socially, and deep hatred for immigrants by nationalists (Watch the "Gangs of New York". It captures the hatred well, IMO because there is a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism).Did you think Trump would be?
If you looked at where Hillary got her votes it was mainly along both coast. This is exactly why the founding fathers set up the electoral college.
Exactly, why can’t the people who keep saying Hillary won the popular vote understand or comprehend. I’m not as well educated as a lot of the posters here, but even I can understand why our government is set up like this.And I think it’s still a valid process. Why should New York and California be responsible for electing a president? And the other 48 states not really have a say.
The electoral college was set up to appease southern states(slavery).If you looked at where Hillary got her votes it was mainly along both coast. This is exactly why the founding fathers set up the electoral college.
The three-fifths compromise no longer applies for representation in Congress or for the Electoral College.The electoral college was set up to appease southern states(slavery).
"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
Did I say it did?The three-fifths compromise no longer applies for representation in Congress or for the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is apportioned as it is for the same reason that Wyoming and New York both get two senators apiece.
The three-fifths compromise and the Electoral College are two different things. One influenced the other, but they are distinct, and one is no longer in play, but the other is. Your quote seemed to conflate the two.Did I say it did?
My point is slavery(ie racism) played a party in the creation of the Electoral College.The three-fifths compromise and the Electoral College are two different things. One influenced the other, but they are distinct, and one is no longer in play, but the other is. Your quote seemed to conflate the two.
Each state gets two senators so that the populous states can't impose their will unchecked on the less populous states. Checks and balances. The apportionment of the Electoral College mirrors that of Congress (except for Washington D.C. via the 23rd Amendment).
The entire Constitution was a result of compromises. The three-fifths compromise gave slave states a greater representation not only in the Electoral College but also in the House of Representatives. By your reasoning, slavery played an equal part in the creation of the House of Representatives as to the Electoral College.My point is slavery(ie racism) played a party in the creation of the Electoral College.
And I think it’s still a valid process. Why should New York and California be responsible for electing a president? And the other 48 states not really have a say.
Why should Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia be responsible for electing a president, with the rest of the country having no say? Without an electoral college the vote of a resident of Wyoming holds just as much sway as the vote of a resident of California. With the electoral college the votes of the majority of Americans mean absolutely nothing.
I've voted in every presidential election since 1988 (I was 17 in 1984), and my vote has always only been symbolic. I've only lived in solid red Texas (1988, 2004 - 2016 elections) or solid blue California (1992 - 2000 elections). Like every resident of a solid blue or red state my vote meant absolutely nothing, as the democratic (CA) or republican (TX) candidate easily won the state and took all of the state's electoral votes. Honestly, other than a feeling of performing their civic duty, what incentive do the voters in non-swing states have for voting for President? I really, really hope that the forecasts I see that Texas will become a swing state really prove true, as I would love for my vote to finally mean something concrete. Of course, if there were no electoral college, it always would have.
If I were king for a day, the following are the three changes I would make to the way we nominate and elect Presidents:
- Replace the electoral college with the popular vote
- Remove the option of voting for a straight party ticket. Every voter should have to look at the names of every candidate before casting a vote
- Change the primary/caucus system for nominating presidential candidates. Voters in early primaries often have an incredibly large (maybe too large) pool of candidates to choose from. Voters in later primaries, if their lucky, might have two viable candidates to choose from, but more often each party's nominee is already selected by that time.
Of course there isn't enough momentum to enact any of the above changes, so we're stuck with this stupid system we have for the foreseeable future.
Fair points and I don’t disagree. There really is no perfect way to decide. I just don’t think it’s right for California to have more power than North Dakota. California has roughly 50x the population of North Dakota and we’re all in the United States. Would you like it if UNT had 50x the power of UTEP in CUSA matters? Would the SEC give 50x more voting power to Kentucky over Vanderbilt? Should a guy who has worked 50 more years longer at your job have 50x more say on work matters?
Under a popular vote, every individual's vote in the entire country actually means something. Under the electoral college, only the votes of those individuals in the swing states actually mean something. Unless you consider each state a homogenous entity, rather than a collection of individuals, how is the electoral college a better system?
How exactly is it more fair? If it's so fair, why is electing the President the only election resolved by a college system? Is it fair that I can win 11 states by 1 vote, receive exactly zero votes in the other 39, and still be named the leader of the free world?I think both systems have flaws. I just think the EC is a little more fair, though it does discount the examples you gave. That’s just the way things are. Life is not fair and in most cases, we don’t get to have our voice heard on many subjects.
With a popular vote, don’t you think it would be easier to manipulate the votes? A rich person could pay people to vote a certain way since those votes actually “matter” now. Do you think every eligible person is even “qualified” to vote? Some people will vote for the “hottest” candidate, or the “whitest”, etc. Should their vote count as much as a person who has done their due diligence on who they’re voting for?
Have you seen these dumbass kids lately? Should a person who eats tide pods and steals sneakers during a riot count as much as yours does? Do you really want that type of person to have the same clout as you?
I think both systems have flaws. I just think the EC is a little more fair, though it does discount the examples you gave. That’s just the way things are. Life is not fair and in most cases, we don’t get to have our voice heard on many subjects.
With a popular vote, don’t you think it would be easier to manipulate the votes? A rich person could pay people to vote a certain way since those votes actually “matter” now. Do you think every eligible person is even “qualified” to vote? Some people will vote for the “hottest” candidate, or the “whitest”, etc. Should their vote count as much as a person who has done their due diligence on who they’re voting for?
Have you seen these dumbass kids lately? Should a person who eats tide pods and steals sneakers during a riot count as much as yours does? Do you really want that type of person to have the same clout as you?
Very elitist of you. You sound like James Madison arguing for the 3/5ths compromise.
I think both systems have flaws. I just think the EC is a little more fair, though it does discount the examples you gave. That’s just the way things are. Life is not fair and in most cases, we don’t get to have our voice heard on many subjects.
With a popular vote, don’t you think it would be easier to manipulate the votes? A rich person could pay people to vote a certain way since those votes actually “matter” now. Do you think every eligible person is even “qualified” to vote? Some people will vote for the “hottest” candidate, or the “whitest”, etc. Should their vote count as much as a person who has done their due diligence on who they’re voting for?
Have you seen these dumbass kids lately? Should a person who eats tide pods and steals sneakers during a riot count as much as yours does? Do you really want that type of person to have the same clout as you?
Conservatives like the Electoral College because it favors them. It swung 2/5 last elections overturning the popular vote. It’s a happenstance, a matter of luck.
But like denying statehood to DC, we have a political party willing to abandon the principle of “one man one vote”, so they can win. It’s a shame.
Do you think there will be interference from other countries in the election?
Conservatives like the Electoral College because it favors them. It swung 2/5 last elections overturning the popular vote. It’s a happenstance, a matter of luck.
But like denying statehood to DC, we have a political party willing to abandon the principle of “one man one vote”, so they can win. It’s a shame.
Yes Russia will try to help Trump win. China will try to help Biden win. Biden like Gore will reject Chinese interference in the election. Trump will I invite Russian interference in the election as he did last time.Do you think there will be interference from other countries in the election?
IMO China and Russia will do what they can to keep Trump President. Another four years of this will strengthen those countries while ours continues to burn itself.Yes Russia will try to help Trump win. China will try to help Biden win. Biden like Gore will reject Chinese interference in the election. Trump will I invite Russian interference in the election as he did last time.
StupidYes Russia will try to help Trump win. China will try to help Biden win. Biden like Gore will reject Chinese interference in the election. Trump will I invite Russian interference in the election as he did last time.