I feel the electoral college should be abolished nationwide. The votes are distributed unfairly and do not accurately represent the opinions of the individual states' citizens. In the entire history of the electoral college, there have been three times that the popular vote did NOT support the winning candidate. even though he had enough electoral votes to win. That calculates to a 5% failure rate of electoral college, which is dismal.
It is NOT a setback for the people of Pennsylvania, because the GOP has no chance of winning it in a presidential election, unless they pull off a near 50 state sweep and landslide. Only Democrats are upset about this, but ONLY the Democrats in the state of PA have any right to bitch and moan about it. Anyone else can change THEIR state's electoral system.
We should try to take advantage of this and change it in a way so that gerrymandering doesn't happen, or is cut drastically.
One problem though, is that it's hard for congress to decide on when something can be considered gerrymandering. Conflicting opinions make the definition too tenuous.
If you do that you'll see more third party and lesser party candidates do much better and be more important. Since if the libertarians or green party want in on it that few electoral votes they get can matter. The current system of winner takes all (except the three states that do proportional voting) benefits the dems and repubs. Especially if this proportional voting were done in Texas, California, Ohio, Florida, and other large states it would have a big impact
They should have proportional vote in each state to determine electoral college. Say you have 10 votes, have it not be 'winner takes all'. Instead if 60 percent of the vote in a state goes to one candidate gets 6 of those votes. Then if another candidate gets 30 percent he or she gets 3 of those votes and best of all if one candidate gets 10 percent he or she gets 1 of those votes. Also when you do the general election don't have run offs for each party. Let them all run in general election.
He has a point. I can see Republicans winning more districts but the Democrats actually winning more votes. The majority of the Democratic voters come from the highly populated districts where the majority of the people are living. I mean that like saying the election should be decided on who wins more states.
When did this occur? That when I defend or oppose one side of the argument, then I am automatically for/or against the other side? As a computer programmer, I am sad to see this binary thinking being employed in our analogue lives.
The reason I am totally appalled by this move is because Party A is looking for a cheap way out against Party B. They want to even the odds. They know, KNOW that they can't win fairly.
As a citizen of a country with 8 parties in parliament, I am disgusted.
When did this occur? That when I defend or oppose one side of the argument, then I am automatically for/or against the other side? As a computer programmer, I am sad to see this binary thinking being employed in our analogue lives.
The reason I am totally appalled by this move is because party A is looking for a cheap way out against 2. They want to even the odds. They know, KNOW that they can't win fairly.
As a citizen of a country with 8 parties in parliament, I am disgusted.
Why can't we just scrap the Electoral College and replace it with Proportional Representation that would make the results match the country's popular vote.
The electorial college is useless now. The media announces the new president right away. The electorial college vote is in December. Those represntative voters will most likely vote for the winner of the popular vote for fear of the people acting out in anger.
Ron Paul to AUDIT THE FED. Ron Paul to END the "Patriot" Act. Ron Paul to end the PRIVATE BANKERS. "Federal Reserve" and the power for them to print our currency (UNCONSTITUTIONAL).
Ron Paul to end WARANTLESS SPYING on American citizens, like you and I
I believe it is called a representative democracy. The whole All-for-One and One-for-All system is ridiculous. Sorry Michael, just because it is not in favour of the democrats, doesn't meant its wrong.
@thegillotine09 If it were based off a popular vote system, it wouldn't be bad I don't think, but this system is not. It's penalizing people for living in a heavily populated district by making their vote count less.
@thegillotine09 Oh I know, but by reworking the lines so that you give a majority of the electoral votes to your party, you're just rigging the game. The electoral system is outdated and stupid. It needs to be gotten rid of.
i don't care if it swings things one way or another, we need districts of the size and shape that best represent all americans equally, across all states. that and a democracy where the majority vote wins would be awesome too.
i just love the conservatards, they spew thier constitutional bullshit but then try to take american voters rights away by changing the rules in thier favor, thier hypocrisy is only out done by thier ignorance & stupidity, what a bunch of slacked jawed yokals, lmao.........
Acturally, I like that method, I think it more democratic and turth to the process, and I hope all states make the switch. Now I would prefer alot of things, such as preferece voting, and there are other good suggestions to change the way the usa president is voted in, but for now I think that is the best. If it benefits one party or the other is irrelevent because no matter what, you gotta work for the vote.
The Republicans know that they can't win unless they cheat or change the rules. They can't play fair and win. However, they do have corporations standing behind them with loads of money. And money can be used to convince the feeble minded to vote against their own interests. We need more of the "best and the brightest" immigrants from around the world to replace these feeble minded people.
Republicans rigging the elections, REALLY? Am I surprised by this news? The more democrats/liberals win, the more Republicans will try to limit voter rights and rig the election. Republicans don't know how to win fairly, so this is another alternative way for them. News media doesn't even care about this. If they did, then they need to run this EVERYDAY so this information gets through viewers thick head.
The system is so screwed up anyway. Republicans (GOP and Tea Party) care only about their pockets being lined with money. Name for me one Republican that has ever cared about the peoples money. Life is like a big poker game for them. They want the most "CHIPS". I say screw all government except SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!! Go SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!
And the right takes one more step towards their goal of turning America into an old fasion noble-and-peasant caste system. That's not capitalism. It's not reward for work. It's caste system, plain and simple. The right wants it, they're backed by some very rich self-styled nobles, and they will do anything to get it, even rigging the system.
@zpardus Your criticism is more correctly levied against Obama than anyone on the right. Talk about crony capitalism. GE, Solyndra, Unions, Insurance Companies, Banks. Yes indeed the rich are doing VERY well under Obama. The poor and minorities.....not so much.
Vote Ron Paul 2012 to end the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS' 40 YEAR LONG UNSUCCESSFUL WAR on the people's freedom of choice to consume substances (The end of the War on Drugs).
Ron Paul to BRING HOME the troops.
Ron Paul to audit the fed. Ron Paul to end the "Patriot" Act. Ron Paul to end the private bankers' "Federal" Reserve and the power for them to print our currency (UNCONSTITUTIONAL).
Ron Paul to end warantless spying on American citizens, like you and I
Really good points, but you can't fit it on a bumper sticker. Plus, I think there were a few words in there with three or more syllables. Therefore, the Redumblicans and Tea Party fools will never understand.
You liberals want us conservatives toagree to national healthcare of some kind, without talking about reducing immigration which allows a way too mcuh 3 million a year to come in? 80,000 refugees a year which are basically wards of the state? Anchor babies that the taxpayer has to take care of? 6 million visa's a year to take care of? And you expect a new entitlemnt system without reducing all of that to something reasonable? You must be kidding.
@calimar28 Im not a liberal but I think you need to realize that immigration is vital to the economy of the US. This is why both sides of the political spectrum are pro immigration! Illegal immigration on the other hand is a different matter entirely.
@CetraTJ THAT MUCH IMMIGRATION IS VITAL? 3 MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR? Do you know that keeps us energy dependant, puts too much pressure on water, sewer, bridges, roads, prisons, etc? 310 million people already here, and you think our current amount of overimmigration is vital?
We have 10% jobless rate...do we need the immigrants at this rate? Do we need 80,000 refugees a year that the UN dictates we take, even though they are living on the taxpayer?
@calimar28 yup. sad but true, our capitalistic society depends on growth and that growth comes from immigrants. Those 3 million people bring in huge amounts of stimulus to the economy unlike the bank bailouts.
@CetraTJ What? OK, let me ask a clarifying question. The term "immigrants" Are they the ones who have applied and waiting sometimes years to enter the country or ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? If so then you are saying that stimulus is created by undocumented workers? How does that equate into a tax contribution?
@Crucible0Patriot yes I was refering to legal immigrantion, legal. However, there is evidence to say that illegals also stimulate the economy but Im not arguing that. I think illegal immigration is a big negative to the USA
@CetraTJ Wrong...the 3 million people immigrating here yearly is a damn strain on our enviroment, infrustructure, and jobs. The only reason immigration is that high and not 250,000 a year which is what it always was before 1965, is because in 1965 Ted Kennedy decided we need more immigration since most of it would be 3rd world, hence democrat votes. You liberals are scoundrols, and traitors.
@calimar28 again, im not a liberal you idiot! you are completely wrong on your figures, immigration was highest during 1901-1910 at about 10% during the war it fell to 5.4% (understandedly) then another drop in the 1930's to 2%. currently its at 3.4% of the pop. over the past decade. Your also wrong about enviroment, jobs and infrustructure. Sorry the numbers dont lie, you do!
@calimar28 also where do you get this 3 million immigrants annually? The Department of Homeland Security reports 1.1million in 2009. I cant find a site which backs up your numbers.
@CetraTJ. Don't pay attention to calimar28. They're a KKK member which means not only should they not be taken seriously they're also stupid and don't know what they're talking about. calimar says they're not a KKK member but anyone who says the stuff they do has to be.
so you think that i.e. a young uninsured man whom gets a deadly desease should just die? Is that the "True Blue Christian American Way" of conservatives?
Oh, that's right! You do! Did you see how people was cheering about the concept of letting patients die, because funding the rich, or the socalled job creators are much more important? Entitlement is something you have a right to. Something you pay into! But you RWers seem to bastardise the language at an ever increasing speed.
@bohemianwriter1 Nope. I think churches, charities, friends and family sholuld handle it. Not the federal goverment. All the social engineering you liberals have done has done us in. We are 15 trillion in debt. Medicare alone is 53 trillion down in unfunded liablities. Your socialist system doesnt work, cant you get it through your thick progressive heads?
@calimar28 In other words, anyone but you should have to deal with the sick and poor. By the way we are 15 trillion in debt because of tax cuts to the wealthy and two unfunded wars. Medicare could be fixed by instituting a national health care system but that would be too much like the rich helping the poor and conservativs can't have that can they? Funny, I thought they said they were Christians.
@atheistphilosopher You liberals think that christianity means goverment control. Cant you seperate church and state? I do.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? That card wont play anymore. The "wealthy" pay some 36% in income tax, and you htink it should be 40 again? 36% is ridiculously high for federal income tax.
The problem is too much spending. The dept of energy? Is that really nessacary? Dept of education? The wars (including Libya) and nation building? 80,000 new refugees yearly?
@calimar28 You got to be kidding! Are you really that naive to believe that mega church scam artist evangelical preachers want to give up their private jets, and their bungalowes to pay for HC for poor people, and people whom lost their jobs thanks to GOP policies, tax cuts to the rich?
You do not know what you are talking about. The debts belong ALL to the GOP and a spineless president whom do not have the balls to stand up to the corrupt criminal thugs of Boehner, Cantor and other RW criminals
Do you really believe that the debts just popped up the day after Obama took office? You bame the poor and the middle class for something that the Fascist Bush regime did. You RWers have no grasp of economy. You have no grasp of reality. You live in a bubble. And when you fuck up, you blame someone else.
The problem is that 400 people have as much wealth as the 150 million on the lower racket combined. And you blame Medicare for the deficit? You are such a tool...
I also register that GOP is not a fan of voting. I do not think that the GOP and conservatives are too happy about the notion of democracy at all.
It is the conservatives, and the RW loonies whom are the problems in America. Liberals are trying to clean up the stinking mess thyat you have created! Again, you sound like a brainwashed Russian in the 60's whom have been ideologically indoctrinated to repeat the rw talking points like fucking parrots!
Republican logic, suppress or blunt the city voters/will of people. They want to give a minority of segregated suburbanites voting Republican more power
THEY can go fu#k themselves. Most votes wins. Mobilize & stop this
Nebraska does have an electoral system. What happened was in one of the districts Obama won which gave Obama an electoral vote.
The Nebraska Republicans didn't like that so they gerrymandered. The also gerrymandered to help one of thier own.
What Nebraska Republicans did was esentially fought against Democracy.
Republicans are getting so rabid they are doing any damage they can to the U.S in a take no prisoner fashion in hopes they can blame it all on the current President.
The Electoral College is a Check and balance for the election process. It has already been subverted with the winner take all concept. A 51% to 49% vote margin is the mark of a democracy. A democracy being a communist\fascist system of government. A republic is governed by the super majority, 75% or more.
The Electoral College is there to insure the will of the super majority of the people. This protects us against voter fraud. Which we desperately need in this day and age.
@TheComputerNazi Your awesome. What a brilliant idea. How about banning democracy and having an government purely controlled by the republicans and their big business puppet masters. It is obvious Hitler was for democracy as he was for the Jews. Your a true student of history.
I've seen a lot of this nonsense, where some clown insists democrats, democracy, liberals, and socialists are fascists. When you ask them to elaborate, the answer usually boils down to "The National Socialist Party has the word 'socialist' in it and the Austrian National Democratic Party has 'democrat' in it!" (although they usually type it in all caps). I recently wasted a good amount of time with someone who insisted social security and the repeal of DADT were fascist policies.
"A democracy being a communist\fascist system of government"
...That's a joke, right?
"This protects us against voter fraud. Which we desperately need in this day and age."
...That's another joke, right? I mean, you can't possibly think the few isolated incidents of voter fraud each year is something from which we desperately need protection.
We republicans stand for the constitution and the morals of our founding fathers, that is why we want to change everything that wasnt even a problem and fight against obvious solutions to the big issues.
I don't even like Josef Stalin, nor I liked what he did in Russia, but he made a profound speech during his time (which it can be a reminder). "It's not the vote that counts, it those that count the votes".
People should be allowed to vote via the web! If people can bank online why can't they vote via the web?!!! This will be revolutionary in nature some people work long hour shifts and cant get to the polling sights. They have all the information on each person they want to elect on the web. Yes this is the future...lol
This wouldn't be bad step to take, but only if it's done nation wide. it would be more representative of the voting public. it would be a step closer to just eliminating the Electoral College.
but doing it in just one state, and doing it because it's politically advantageous to your party, is anti-american.
michael shure's an idiot for not realizing that the gop wants to do away with the electoral college altogether, and for having any opinion other than that the electoral college should be done away with altogether. also, michael shure's stupid-looking new beard looks stupid.
@thirtyoneuniform last time there was a poll on this issue it was by Gallup in 04: 51% of republicans in favor of keeping the Electoral College. 73% Democrats, 66% Independents were against keeping the electoral college.
If the Republicans had a change of heart since then, it's probably because Obama got such a Huge Number of the Electoral Votes, just like how the 2000 election made many Democrats oppose the electoral college because they won the Popular Vote and lost the Electoral Vote.
@Nerdylation lol, you obviously don't understand politics if you seriously believe that, but even IF it were true, which it isn't, i'm still right about michael shure's beard.
I wouldn't vote Republican, which is why I disagree with the electoral college. I live in Utah where my vote really doesn't matter, and probably never will. If my vote was taken into consideration when matched with the votes from others states then I would matter at least a bit.
In 2009, the democrats smart move: "hey, people dont want goverment healthcare mandates...they are screaming at us in townhalls and flooding the WH switchboard. We better listen. Let's back off of Obamacare, and then we get to keep the house mabye."
Instead libs said:
"who cares if the people dont want Obamacare?" We liberals know whats best, and we will shove it through even though it might cost us the 2012 elections.
@AllNightDayDream I would totally go for the Nebraska-Maine system here in Missouri. We are such a divided state that whether we go red or blue, 48-49% of Missourians don't get represented. Someone from each swing state should fight to get this on his/her state's ballot.
POPULAR vote is the best way to elect a President! This electoral system is fucked up! This way even if I vote Democrat but the majority in my state vote Republican my vote doesn't even count at all! That's how the "Decider" got elected in 2000 even though Al Gore had more votes! That's NOT democracy!
@TheORGANEZIZED, agreed. I live in Utah so my vote has never counted, ever. It's disgusting. I have tried so very hard to exist in this country, however, the government and society has done everything in it's power to take all of my money and throw me in jail over quite literally nothing. I'm outta this country asap, get my strength and sanity back, maybe even get to work a job in a field I love!
Oh! So take away the rights of people who live in populous districts and give the power to the people who live in the sparsely populated areas! good plan, NOT!
@kieyrofl Now would it be right if candidate A got 40% of the votes, candidate B got 30% and candidate C got 30%. By your logic candidate A should win the election. Sounds fair. But what if candidate B hadn't taken part in the election, and all his votes had gone to candidate C instead. If we take this as a fact, then it is not candidate A that the people want. It's not the majority which voted for candidate A.
I do think reform is needed, but there's not a simple answer to the prob like that.
@kieyrofl Let me guess, you are from Florida, Cali or New York? <<<< This fool wants to make sure that Utah, Idaho, S Dakota, N. Dakota, Alaska, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana etc. Have NOTHING to do with choosing their president. Yes, he wants to nullify the input of 30% of the country. Idiots like this are ONE ( Aloof ) and TWO (so stupid that they have no idea what they are talking about ).
@kieyrofl I agree with you in pincipal, but I also get that their is a divide between state and poplar vote, sad I know but it is there in the USA. Under this system for Penn, which all states should do in my opinon, the popular vote would matter alot more than the state, so can we say this is a good comproise?
Aw Hell! You guys have idealized an Al Gore presidency. That sucker would have crippled the economy with his global warming nonsense even worse than anything Bush did. Al Gore, regardless of the circumstances of the election, would have been a disaster in his own right.
So you are saying that Gore would have crippled the economy, while Bush definitely crippled the economy (Bush era tax cuts and multiple wars being the main culprits) No offense, but I think Gore (who was the vice president when our country took a deficit under George Bush Sr. and ended the administration with a surplus, but don't let fact's stop you) wouldn't have given overly generous tax cuts to the rich and declare two seperate wars, one being under false pretenses.
What surplus? It's accounting trickery! We didn't go over budget, but we still borrowed to finance everything through out the 90's! We still added to the deficit!
Clinton was probably the smallest government pres. since Carter, but we still bombed countries that we had no business being in. And many of our problems today are related to the Clinton/Greenspan policies!
@Kevlar1983 well lets see... gore is a fake left wing bilderberg stooge and bush is a fake right wing bilderberg stooge. and both bush and kerry were skull and bonesman. so Yes. yes i do say that Gore would have crippled the economy. just as Obama is doing now and just like the republican stooge who replaces him will do in the future.
@Kevlar1983 The Clinton administration only managed to balance the budget due to being dragged there, kicking and screaming, by a Republican controlled Congress. A quick check of the facts (as opposed to dem propaganda) shows without doubt that this is true.
I haven't worked since 2 weeks before Zero was elected, thanks to investor memories of Jimmy Carter's Windfall Profits Tax on domestic oil/gas production and the Dems vilifying of corporate aviation.
um.....why don't we make it just so who ever gets the most votes wins? i mean wtf is the point of a electoral college anyways? can some one explain, because its not like we need that when we have things like computers who can handle all of it.
Do the GOP realize that George Bush would have never been elected if it weren't for the electoral college? In a way, that would have been good. Gore would have been more proactive in preventing the attack, no Iraq war, no tax cut for the rich, we wouldn't be calling the rich "job creaters", no economic damage, universal health care passed. It wouldn't be too bad at all...
Originally both senators from each state was elected by their respective state legislatures. Since it was changed to popular vote, your state has zero direct representation in congress. The electoral college is the last vestege of representation in presidential elections. I would advocate that one senator be elected by their respective state legislatures to remedy this problem. The alternative is an all-powerful federal government.
You have to represent states as well as regions because that is the nature of federalism. Otherwise the unrepresented States have no equal representation & therefore no reason to be contained within this nation. This is supposed to be a union of equal States.
@StinkFingerr ....and they are represented in the senate. If they don't something to be legislated, they can do it easily in the senate. The president should be the President of the PEOPLE, not the President of the STATES.
Pay attention! this rule was imposed when there were 13-15 states that resembled much closely in terms of population, demographics, etc., not when there were 50 states totally different in economic power, etc. The demographics changed, so should the rule of election.
This argument needs significant focusing: The PA GOP is trying to rig the 2012 elections! How? Graphs will forcefully show a PA sea of blue that results in Rick Perry stealing Pennsylvania!
America is being whipsawed by two political hucksters bought by the greedy elite.
The only sensible approach for every election contest in the foreseeable future is to FIND THE LEAST BOUGHT CANDIDATE AND VOTE THEM IN.
I say get rid of the electoral college altogether. We're talking about a system that was conceived before the telegraph. So 200 years ago how did you find out who Maine voted for? Send riders on horseback. Does that system make sense in 2012?
If this was applied to every state in the US i would totally support this sincei t would give us a more accurate reading of the countries beliefs and what we want (which could be dangerous but that's democracy for yah). We can't just say we don't want this since it'll inconvenience our chances to win. At the same time we can't just give it to one state saying it'll inconvenience them which is good for us.
Elections have consequences. You liberals pushed Obamacare against our will, and thanks to that brash move on your part, You liberals lost in 2010, and lost many gubernatorial races, and state legeslatures. Now they have the right to change their states districts how they see fit.
@calimar28 yea that totally makes sense. So because the Steelers lost the super bowl the Packers can take away all their draft picks for the next 4 years right?
@happypedro12 Thats a terrible analogy. The packers won and get top draft picks, but cant take away the Steelers picks because the Packers wernt elected to anything. You libs pushed your socialism on us with Obamacare, and we spoke in the elections. Elections ahve consequences...now your states voting districts and laws, will be changed to fit the GOP needs. Dont like it? Then you shouldnt have shoved Obamacare down our throats.
You forced Obamacare on us...now pay the price. Try to to cry.
@calimar28 "You libs pushed your socialism on us with Obamacare"
We can understand how informed you are with this statement, which proves my previous post about Americans' being stupid.
Please describe in what terms Obamacare was socialist? No jibberish, I want facts as a list. Oh, but first describe socialism. Because maybe you may not even know what socialism is.
Asking the people who spend so much time hollering about it to define 'socialism' is like asking a dog why it chases it's tail. It's just a generic way for them to say they don't like something or the guy on Fox told them to be scared of it. It's the same thing they did 50 years ago with the word "communism". The definition is irrelevant; it's just something you accuse someone of being so they will be reluctant to support something for fear others might think they are communist.
@tansuturdag Obama care takes peoples money, and redistributes it to others. That's socialism. It also forces people to buy a service. again, socialism.
@calimar28 "Obama care takes peoples money, and redistributes it to others. That's socialism. It also forces people to buy a service. again, socialism."
Dude, please stop talking. The more you talk, the more your level of stupidity is exposed. :-))
Also, please tell us how Obamacare takes people's money? And how does it redistribute to the people, especially if "everybody", again everybody is required to buy insurance? Facts please, in a list. No gibberish.
@tansuturdag Because those who cannot buy insurance because of low income, get free care. Not only that, but goverment dictating that we have to buy something is constitutional? Please.
@calimar28 "Because those who cannot buy insurance because of low income, get free care. Not only that, but goverment dictating that we have to buy something is constitutional? Please."
Ha, OK! You are one of those guys in the Republican debate who yelled "yeah", when asked if we should let people die, if they don't have insurance. So for you "pro-life" people, if a low income who cannot buy insurance gets sick or into an accident, they should die. Why save them?
@calimar28 "Because those who cannot buy insurance because of low income, get free care. Not only that, but goverment dictating that we have to buy something is constitutional? Please."
Oh, by the way, that moral obligation did not come with Obamacare. That's called Medicaid and it's been there for decades.
How uninformed you guys can be, but still form opinions about things that you are so informed about?? Sigh.
@calimar28 "Obamacare takes care of some people, with other peoples money. THAT is socialism."
for you to learn socialism:
/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; [1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political of affairs.
@calimar28 I will appreciate if you can tell us whether you get your news from Fox News, because your sentences are exactly like their headline statements.
It has become fashionable to denegrate the constitution because it is old. That is nonsensical. The constitution's principles are perfectly adaptable to today's world. Good principles are timeless & adhering to them does NOT imply repeating the mistakes of the past, nor abandoning modernity.
The constitution is liberty's lifeline. Discard it @ your peril.
@SonicobbsessedR2 I'm sorry. American people totally deserve all of this. If you cast your vote according to religious beliefs, you get what you deserve. F'em. They are so dumb that they vote for Obama and then two years later they vote for the party who vowed not to let Obama accomplish anything to shake things up. Yep, they are getting some shaken up country. Ungovernable. Americans totally deserve it.
Why is it tyranny? Because it leaves whole areas unable to influence presidential elections in a meaningful way. Low population States would routinely be out-voted by higher population largely urban States. The promise of equitable representation would cease to operate for these States in presidential elections. THAT is tyranny. The electoral college is the only way to address this conundrum.
Lets say one district has 8 million and votes republican, they get one vote. Now let's their neighboring district has only 80 thousand and they vote democrat. They also get one vote. It destroys the idea of one person one vote. I don't like the idea of the Electoral College but it has been the better system.
@StinkFingerr Why do you have to represent regions, instead of people? States already use their equality of influence in the Senate. Every state sends two senators regardless of the population. Now, why do you have to do it for presidency, too?
Why would a person in Montana has to have more influence on Presidental Election than a person living in California? Besides, many states don't get any attention during campaign. Does any candidate go to TX? No. Because NH is more important. Why?
Republicans aren't for a popular vote. They are ONLY proposing this because it hurts the dems. If changing the system would help the democrats they wouldn't even fucking propose it.
@StinkFingerr, exactly. There was a REASON that the electoral college is there.
One man, one vote is a seductive siren's song,but it leaves whole areas unable to influence presidential elections in a meaningful way. Remember, the electoral college brilliantly balances numerical representation with regional representation.
I don't like the electoral college vote, either. But a straight up popular vote is not the answer.
To be honest I kind of like the county-by-county idea. It makes sense. Yes, in PA it would hurt democrats, but elsewhere it could help them. The problem, as pointed out in this video, is that only a couple states currently operate under this system. I actually didn't know NE and ME were doing this already.
@NinjaTaco08 You're kidding, right? You know that if you go county by county, since 20% of the counties form 75% of the population in the US, it means that a president can be elected by the 25% of the population even thought his opponent gets 75% of the vote.
Let's say Florida. There 67 counties. Obama got only 15 of them but since the population is concentrated there (big cities) he still got the popular vote. Let's assume, each county votes 100% one way, ie. Obama gets 100% of the votes of the counties that he won in 2008 and John McCain gets 100%. In this case, because of population concentration, the total vote count would be Obama 70-75% of the total votes and McCain 25-30%.
@NinjaTaco08 But since county by county McCain got 52 of the 67 counties, he would get 77% (52/67) of the electorates, meaning only 25% of population electing the 77% of the electorate. And this makes sense to you?
Obama 2012
padude64 3 months ago
I feel the electoral college should be abolished nationwide. The votes are distributed unfairly and do not accurately represent the opinions of the individual states' citizens. In the entire history of the electoral college, there have been three times that the popular vote did NOT support the winning candidate. even though he had enough electoral votes to win. That calculates to a 5% failure rate of electoral college, which is dismal.
SillyLitleGirl 3 months ago
It is NOT a setback for the people of Pennsylvania, because the GOP has no chance of winning it in a presidential election, unless they pull off a near 50 state sweep and landslide. Only Democrats are upset about this, but ONLY the Democrats in the state of PA have any right to bitch and moan about it. Anyone else can change THEIR state's electoral system.
mooninquirer 5 months ago
We should try to take advantage of this and change it in a way so that gerrymandering doesn't happen, or is cut drastically.
One problem though, is that it's hard for congress to decide on when something can be considered gerrymandering. Conflicting opinions make the definition too tenuous.
ccricers 5 months ago
If you do that you'll see more third party and lesser party candidates do much better and be more important. Since if the libertarians or green party want in on it that few electoral votes they get can matter. The current system of winner takes all (except the three states that do proportional voting) benefits the dems and repubs. Especially if this proportional voting were done in Texas, California, Ohio, Florida, and other large states it would have a big impact
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
They should have proportional vote in each state to determine electoral college. Say you have 10 votes, have it not be 'winner takes all'. Instead if 60 percent of the vote in a state goes to one candidate gets 6 of those votes. Then if another candidate gets 30 percent he or she gets 3 of those votes and best of all if one candidate gets 10 percent he or she gets 1 of those votes. Also when you do the general election don't have run offs for each party. Let them all run in general election.
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
I hate the electoral college. 1 person, 1 vote. AL Gore won the presidency in 2000, but the stupid electoral college screwed him.
Saebeck32 5 months ago 4
America should get Proportional Representation instead of this archaic system they do use...
leegeorgeson 5 months ago 4
He has a point. I can see Republicans winning more districts but the Democrats actually winning more votes. The majority of the Democratic voters come from the highly populated districts where the majority of the people are living. I mean that like saying the election should be decided on who wins more states.
jayNicks10 5 months ago
When did this occur? That when I defend or oppose one side of the argument, then I am automatically for/or against the other side? As a computer programmer, I am sad to see this binary thinking being employed in our analogue lives.
The reason I am totally appalled by this move is because Party A is looking for a cheap way out against Party B. They want to even the odds. They know, KNOW that they can't win fairly.
As a citizen of a country with 8 parties in parliament, I am disgusted.
Kinjamaimai 5 months ago
Comment removed
Kinjamaimai 5 months ago
When did this occur? That when I defend or oppose one side of the argument, then I am automatically for/or against the other side? As a computer programmer, I am sad to see this binary thinking being employed in our analogue lives.
The reason I am totally appalled by this move is because party A is looking for a cheap way out against 2. They want to even the odds. They know, KNOW that they can't win fairly.
As a citizen of a country with 8 parties in parliament, I am disgusted.
Kinjamaimai 5 months ago 3
Why can't we just scrap the Electoral College and replace it with Proportional Representation that would make the results match the country's popular vote.
applefanpc 5 months ago 3
@applefanpc Wouldn't that be a good thing? Isn't that the whole point of democracy?
AidestheKiwi 5 months ago
@AidestheKiwi Exactly
applefanpc 5 months ago
The electorial college is useless now. The media announces the new president right away. The electorial college vote is in December. Those represntative voters will most likely vote for the winner of the popular vote for fear of the people acting out in anger.
CHAOSoriginal 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
This has been flagged as spam show
Vote Ron Paul 2012!
Ron Paul to BRING HOME the troops.
Ron Paul to AUDIT THE FED. Ron Paul to END the "Patriot" Act. Ron Paul to end the PRIVATE BANKERS. "Federal Reserve" and the power for them to print our currency (UNCONSTITUTIONAL).
Ron Paul to end WARANTLESS SPYING on American citizens, like you and I
Ron Paul to RESTORE the people's rights!
psillyguava
Reposted.
rainbo5250 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" The Republicans know that they can't win unless they cheat or change the rules. "
Hmmm...that's odd.
The democrats do the samething.
Stated by MinmatarThrasher
That is because they all seem to be working FOR and UNDER,.......the money makers,.....who appear to OWN BOTH SIDES.
The game is rigged.
That is why nothing ever changes,.....no matter who is in the White House.
rainbo5250 5 months ago
I believe it is called a representative democracy. The whole All-for-One and One-for-All system is ridiculous. Sorry Michael, just because it is not in favour of the democrats, doesn't meant its wrong.
BloodStoney 5 months ago 3
They don't care about elections and democracy. That's why we have lobbying as well. It's all bullshit. They just make it up as they go along.
PawnBACM 5 months ago
I'm all for this. I always disliked the electoral college anyway. Let's mix it up a little.
ArchNME 5 months ago
This wouldn't be a problem if our politicians weren't bought...
psychokillercrab 5 months ago
What the hell, weren't democrats pushing for electoral reform for decades now? Now the republicans try it and they're evil?
thegillotine09 5 months ago
@thegillotine09 If it were based off a popular vote system, it wouldn't be bad I don't think, but this system is not. It's penalizing people for living in a heavily populated district by making their vote count less.
DisturbedHavok 5 months ago
@DisturbedHavok
All districts in a state are required to have the same population. Maybe learn about the electoral process before criticizing it?
thegillotine09 5 months ago
@thegillotine09 Oh I know, but by reworking the lines so that you give a majority of the electoral votes to your party, you're just rigging the game. The electoral system is outdated and stupid. It needs to be gotten rid of.
DisturbedHavok 5 months ago
America is saturated with corruption; lets stop arguing and accept it so we can finally fight to solve this.
Jex134 5 months ago 3
i don't care if it swings things one way or another, we need districts of the size and shape that best represent all americans equally, across all states. that and a democracy where the majority vote wins would be awesome too.
GermAmp55 5 months ago
i just love the conservatards, they spew thier constitutional bullshit but then try to take american voters rights away by changing the rules in thier favor, thier hypocrisy is only out done by thier ignorance & stupidity, what a bunch of slacked jawed yokals, lmao.........
jetbtkng 5 months ago
I 100% Agree we need to redo it so Republicans can steal every GOD FORSAKEN ELECTION NOW AND FOREVER SO THEY CAN TRULY F-UP AMERICA!
1290001 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Financial Enemy of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, & America - Jew
1. Goldman Sachs CEO, Lyold Blankfein - Jew
2. IMF Deputy CEO, John Lisky - Jew
3. Ex IMF CEO, Dominic Strauss -Jew
4. World Bank CEO, Robert Zoellick - Jew
5. Ex World Bank CEO, James Woolfesen -Jew
6. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke -Jew
7. Ex Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan -Jew
8. Obama Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner -Jew
9. George Bush Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson -Jew
Stevie68000 5 months ago
Electoral college gave Bush the election when he didn't win the popular vote. So I don't know why they're whining.
jxsilicon9 5 months ago 33
Acturally, I like that method, I think it more democratic and turth to the process, and I hope all states make the switch. Now I would prefer alot of things, such as preferece voting, and there are other good suggestions to change the way the usa president is voted in, but for now I think that is the best. If it benefits one party or the other is irrelevent because no matter what, you gotta work for the vote.
KangaKucha 5 months ago
They'll, cheat, lie, and steal their way to win the elections...you got to remember their Christian Rights.
Ddickeydew1 5 months ago 27
So they've resorted to changing the rules of the game during the 9th inning? Wow.
whoiscarlito 5 months ago 2
I hate these new GOP idiots here in PA. Screwed over my educational finances, raised property taxes, etc.
You know, all that stuff that everyone without money is hurt by.
OtakuRebel 5 months ago
The Republicans know that they can't win unless they cheat or change the rules. They can't play fair and win. However, they do have corporations standing behind them with loads of money. And money can be used to convince the feeble minded to vote against their own interests. We need more of the "best and the brightest" immigrants from around the world to replace these feeble minded people.
SuperToughnut 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperToughnut " The Republicans know that they can't win unless they cheat or change the rules. "
Hmmm...that's odd.
The democrats do the samething.
MinmatarThrasher 5 months ago
Republicans rigging the elections, REALLY? Am I surprised by this news? The more democrats/liberals win, the more Republicans will try to limit voter rights and rig the election. Republicans don't know how to win fairly, so this is another alternative way for them. News media doesn't even care about this. If they did, then they need to run this EVERYDAY so this information gets through viewers thick head.
Stingerbillion 5 months ago
The system is so screwed up anyway. Republicans (GOP and Tea Party) care only about their pockets being lined with money. Name for me one Republican that has ever cared about the peoples money. Life is like a big poker game for them. They want the most "CHIPS". I say screw all government except SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!! Go SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!
1018bandgeek 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Financial Enemy of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, & America - Jew
1. Goldman Sachs CEO, Lyold Blankfein - Jew
2. IMF Deputy CEO, John Lisky - Jew
3. Ex IMF CEO, Dominic Strauss - Jew
4. World Bank CEO, Robert Zoellick - Jew
5. Ex World Bank CEO, James Woolfesen -Jew
6. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke -Jew
7. Ex Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan -Jew
8. Obama Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner -Jew
9. George Bush Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson -Jew
Stevie68000 5 months ago
Republicans cheating? No.... Really?
jimalbi 5 months ago
Obama is done bro.........sry game over ... How about we let the people vote....
gator051 5 months ago
The popular vote should be the ONLY vote.
whothaplaya 5 months ago
And the right takes one more step towards their goal of turning America into an old fasion noble-and-peasant caste system. That's not capitalism. It's not reward for work. It's caste system, plain and simple. The right wants it, they're backed by some very rich self-styled nobles, and they will do anything to get it, even rigging the system.
zpardus 5 months ago 2
@zpardus Your criticism is more correctly levied against Obama than anyone on the right. Talk about crony capitalism. GE, Solyndra, Unions, Insurance Companies, Banks. Yes indeed the rich are doing VERY well under Obama. The poor and minorities.....not so much.
Huboons 5 months ago
If you are going to proportion out the electoral college votes, at least do it based on percentages instead of congressional districts.
neacej1 5 months ago
@Thediggitydoggg
Completely Agree
stefers08 5 months ago
I'm not so sure I agree with the electoral college. Why can't we just directly vote for our president?
stefers08 5 months ago 2
Why can't they get rid of the electoral college and let every persons vote count as 1 vote?
Thediggitydoggg 5 months ago
@Thediggitydoggg Because then the browns would always win
calimar28 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vote Ron Paul 2012 to end the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS' 40 YEAR LONG UNSUCCESSFUL WAR on the people's freedom of choice to consume substances (The end of the War on Drugs).
Ron Paul to BRING HOME the troops.
Ron Paul to audit the fed. Ron Paul to end the "Patriot" Act. Ron Paul to end the private bankers' "Federal" Reserve and the power for them to print our currency (UNCONSTITUTIONAL).
Ron Paul to end warantless spying on American citizens, like you and I
Ron Paul to restore the people's rights!!!
psillyguava 5 months ago
Really good points, but you can't fit it on a bumper sticker. Plus, I think there were a few words in there with three or more syllables. Therefore, the Redumblicans and Tea Party fools will never understand.
rybpo7 5 months ago
You liberals want us conservatives toagree to national healthcare of some kind, without talking about reducing immigration which allows a way too mcuh 3 million a year to come in? 80,000 refugees a year which are basically wards of the state? Anchor babies that the taxpayer has to take care of? 6 million visa's a year to take care of? And you expect a new entitlemnt system without reducing all of that to something reasonable? You must be kidding.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 Im not a liberal but I think you need to realize that immigration is vital to the economy of the US. This is why both sides of the political spectrum are pro immigration! Illegal immigration on the other hand is a different matter entirely.
CetraTJ 5 months ago
@CetraTJ THAT MUCH IMMIGRATION IS VITAL? 3 MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR? Do you know that keeps us energy dependant, puts too much pressure on water, sewer, bridges, roads, prisons, etc? 310 million people already here, and you think our current amount of overimmigration is vital?
We have 10% jobless rate...do we need the immigrants at this rate? Do we need 80,000 refugees a year that the UN dictates we take, even though they are living on the taxpayer?
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 yup. sad but true, our capitalistic society depends on growth and that growth comes from immigrants. Those 3 million people bring in huge amounts of stimulus to the economy unlike the bank bailouts.
CetraTJ 5 months ago
@CetraTJ What? OK, let me ask a clarifying question. The term "immigrants" Are they the ones who have applied and waiting sometimes years to enter the country or ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? If so then you are saying that stimulus is created by undocumented workers? How does that equate into a tax contribution?
Crucible0Patriot 5 months ago
@Crucible0Patriot yes I was refering to legal immigrantion, legal. However, there is evidence to say that illegals also stimulate the economy but Im not arguing that. I think illegal immigration is a big negative to the USA
CetraTJ 5 months ago
@CetraTJ Wrong...the 3 million people immigrating here yearly is a damn strain on our enviroment, infrustructure, and jobs. The only reason immigration is that high and not 250,000 a year which is what it always was before 1965, is because in 1965 Ted Kennedy decided we need more immigration since most of it would be 3rd world, hence democrat votes. You liberals are scoundrols, and traitors.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 again, im not a liberal you idiot! you are completely wrong on your figures, immigration was highest during 1901-1910 at about 10% during the war it fell to 5.4% (understandedly) then another drop in the 1930's to 2%. currently its at 3.4% of the pop. over the past decade. Your also wrong about enviroment, jobs and infrustructure. Sorry the numbers dont lie, you do!
CetraTJ 5 months ago
@calimar28 also where do you get this 3 million immigrants annually? The Department of Homeland Security reports 1.1million in 2009. I cant find a site which backs up your numbers.
CetraTJ 5 months ago
@CetraTJ I got the 3 million figure from watching Lou Dobbs one night.
Look, add in the 80,000 refugees per year, add in the anchor babies, add in the overstayed visa's and "guest workers", and you get 3 million.
And what, 1.1 million isnt too much?
calimar28 5 months ago
@CetraTJ. Don't pay attention to calimar28. They're a KKK member which means not only should they not be taken seriously they're also stupid and don't know what they're talking about. calimar says they're not a KKK member but anyone who says the stuff they do has to be.
cne08 5 months ago
@calimar28
so you think that i.e. a young uninsured man whom gets a deadly desease should just die? Is that the "True Blue Christian American Way" of conservatives?
Oh, that's right! You do! Did you see how people was cheering about the concept of letting patients die, because funding the rich, or the socalled job creators are much more important? Entitlement is something you have a right to. Something you pay into! But you RWers seem to bastardise the language at an ever increasing speed.
bohemianwriter1 5 months ago
@bohemianwriter1 Nope. I think churches, charities, friends and family sholuld handle it. Not the federal goverment. All the social engineering you liberals have done has done us in. We are 15 trillion in debt. Medicare alone is 53 trillion down in unfunded liablities. Your socialist system doesnt work, cant you get it through your thick progressive heads?
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 In other words, anyone but you should have to deal with the sick and poor. By the way we are 15 trillion in debt because of tax cuts to the wealthy and two unfunded wars. Medicare could be fixed by instituting a national health care system but that would be too much like the rich helping the poor and conservativs can't have that can they? Funny, I thought they said they were Christians.
atheistphilosopher 5 months ago
@atheistphilosopher You liberals think that christianity means goverment control. Cant you seperate church and state? I do.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? That card wont play anymore. The "wealthy" pay some 36% in income tax, and you htink it should be 40 again? 36% is ridiculously high for federal income tax.
The problem is too much spending. The dept of energy? Is that really nessacary? Dept of education? The wars (including Libya) and nation building? 80,000 new refugees yearly?
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 You got to be kidding! Are you really that naive to believe that mega church scam artist evangelical preachers want to give up their private jets, and their bungalowes to pay for HC for poor people, and people whom lost their jobs thanks to GOP policies, tax cuts to the rich?
You do not know what you are talking about. The debts belong ALL to the GOP and a spineless president whom do not have the balls to stand up to the corrupt criminal thugs of Boehner, Cantor and other RW criminals
bohemianwriter1 5 months ago
@bohemianwriter1 Yeah right, medicare is 52 trillion in the hole because of republicans.
GTFO of here
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 54 trillion is the total debt. medicare is a percentage of this number
YoungTon22 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@calimar28
Stop lying!
You know not what you are talking about....
bohemianwriter1 5 months ago
@calimar28
Do you really believe that the debts just popped up the day after Obama took office? You bame the poor and the middle class for something that the Fascist Bush regime did. You RWers have no grasp of economy. You have no grasp of reality. You live in a bubble. And when you fuck up, you blame someone else.
The problem is that 400 people have as much wealth as the 150 million on the lower racket combined. And you blame Medicare for the deficit? You are such a tool...
bohemianwriter1 5 months ago
@calimar28
I also register that GOP is not a fan of voting. I do not think that the GOP and conservatives are too happy about the notion of democracy at all.
It is the conservatives, and the RW loonies whom are the problems in America. Liberals are trying to clean up the stinking mess thyat you have created! Again, you sound like a brainwashed Russian in the 60's whom have been ideologically indoctrinated to repeat the rw talking points like fucking parrots!
bohemianwriter1 5 months ago
Republican logic, suppress or blunt the city voters/will of people. They want to give a minority of segregated suburbanites voting Republican more power
THEY can go fu#k themselves. Most votes wins. Mobilize & stop this
Bolgernow 5 months ago
Nebraska does have an electoral system. What happened was in one of the districts Obama won which gave Obama an electoral vote.
The Nebraska Republicans didn't like that so they gerrymandered. The also gerrymandered to help one of thier own.
What Nebraska Republicans did was esentially fought against Democracy.
Republicans are getting so rabid they are doing any damage they can to the U.S in a take no prisoner fashion in hopes they can blame it all on the current President.
666brainiac 5 months ago
@Fieryshroomsonfire No I mean Australia
ZephonTLucifer 5 months ago
The Electoral College is a Check and balance for the election process. It has already been subverted with the winner take all concept. A 51% to 49% vote margin is the mark of a democracy. A democracy being a communist\fascist system of government. A republic is governed by the super majority, 75% or more.
The Electoral College is there to insure the will of the super majority of the people. This protects us against voter fraud. Which we desperately need in this day and age.
TheComputerNazi 5 months ago
@TheComputerNazi Your awesome. What a brilliant idea. How about banning democracy and having an government purely controlled by the republicans and their big business puppet masters. It is obvious Hitler was for democracy as he was for the Jews. Your a true student of history.
MrPincoNico 5 months ago
@MrPincoNico
I've seen a lot of this nonsense, where some clown insists democrats, democracy, liberals, and socialists are fascists. When you ask them to elaborate, the answer usually boils down to "The National Socialist Party has the word 'socialist' in it and the Austrian National Democratic Party has 'democrat' in it!" (although they usually type it in all caps). I recently wasted a good amount of time with someone who insisted social security and the repeal of DADT were fascist policies.
jimbrown257 5 months ago
@TheComputerNazi
"A democracy being a communist\fascist system of government"
...That's a joke, right?
"This protects us against voter fraud. Which we desperately need in this day and age."
...That's another joke, right? I mean, you can't possibly think the few isolated incidents of voter fraud each year is something from which we desperately need protection.
jimbrown257 5 months ago
We republicans stand for the constitution and the morals of our founding fathers, that is why we want to change everything that wasnt even a problem and fight against obvious solutions to the big issues.
Gr4yW0rld 5 months ago
I don't even like Josef Stalin, nor I liked what he did in Russia, but he made a profound speech during his time (which it can be a reminder). "It's not the vote that counts, it those that count the votes".
mike61524334251 5 months ago
People should be allowed to vote via the web! If people can bank online why can't they vote via the web?!!! This will be revolutionary in nature some people work long hour shifts and cant get to the polling sights. They have all the information on each person they want to elect on the web. Yes this is the future...lol
EmeterioBetances 5 months ago
This wouldn't be bad step to take, but only if it's done nation wide. it would be more representative of the voting public. it would be a step closer to just eliminating the Electoral College.
but doing it in just one state, and doing it because it's politically advantageous to your party, is anti-american.
Nerdylation 5 months ago
michael shure's an idiot for not realizing that the gop wants to do away with the electoral college altogether, and for having any opinion other than that the electoral college should be done away with altogether. also, michael shure's stupid-looking new beard looks stupid.
thirtyoneuniform 5 months ago
@thirtyoneuniform last time there was a poll on this issue it was by Gallup in 04: 51% of republicans in favor of keeping the Electoral College. 73% Democrats, 66% Independents were against keeping the electoral college.
If the Republicans had a change of heart since then, it's probably because Obama got such a Huge Number of the Electoral Votes, just like how the 2000 election made many Democrats oppose the electoral college because they won the Popular Vote and lost the Electoral Vote.
Nerdylation 5 months ago
@Nerdylation lol, you obviously don't understand politics if you seriously believe that, but even IF it were true, which it isn't, i'm still right about michael shure's beard.
thirtyoneuniform 5 months ago
I wouldn't vote Republican, which is why I disagree with the electoral college. I live in Utah where my vote really doesn't matter, and probably never will. If my vote was taken into consideration when matched with the votes from others states then I would matter at least a bit.
I still vote though :(
plusmin09 5 months ago
In 2009, the democrats smart move: "hey, people dont want goverment healthcare mandates...they are screaming at us in townhalls and flooding the WH switchboard. We better listen. Let's back off of Obamacare, and then we get to keep the house mabye."
Instead libs said:
"who cares if the people dont want Obamacare?" We liberals know whats best, and we will shove it through even though it might cost us the 2012 elections.
calimar28 5 months ago
The Electoral College is out dated and should be removed. Ron Paul agrees.
st4ticblu3 5 months ago
@AllNightDayDream I would totally go for the Nebraska-Maine system here in Missouri. We are such a divided state that whether we go red or blue, 48-49% of Missourians don't get represented. Someone from each swing state should fight to get this on his/her state's ballot.
UNLebanon 5 months ago
POPULAR vote is the best way to elect a President! This electoral system is fucked up! This way even if I vote Democrat but the majority in my state vote Republican my vote doesn't even count at all! That's how the "Decider" got elected in 2000 even though Al Gore had more votes! That's NOT democracy!
TheORGANEZIZED 5 months ago
@TheORGANEZIZED, agreed. I live in Utah so my vote has never counted, ever. It's disgusting. I have tried so very hard to exist in this country, however, the government and society has done everything in it's power to take all of my money and throw me in jail over quite literally nothing. I'm outta this country asap, get my strength and sanity back, maybe even get to work a job in a field I love!
TheBoxingCannabyte 5 months ago
So, Republican'ts want to change the rules in the middle of the game ??? Canada, I am on my way......
Adebayo714 5 months ago 14
Oh! So take away the rights of people who live in populous districts and give the power to the people who live in the sparsely populated areas! good plan, NOT!
kalvanar 5 months ago
so would i be safe in assuming that cenk isnt going to be hosting TYT anymore?
NewMangosOntheBlock 5 months ago
Here's a better way to elect the president, only Canadians get to vote.
jared091787 5 months ago 8
I have an awesome idea for an electoral system, the guy with the most votes...wins?
kieyrofl 5 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks 105
@kieyrofl after we making sure they are not a republican candidate from Texas.
VoiceOfReason11000 5 months ago
@kieyrofl --you're right -- there is all this manipulation going on now -- WE NEED TO JUST GO NATIONALLY WITH WHOMEVER GETS THE MOST VOTES
DillonDee1 5 months ago
@kieyrofl Now would it be right if candidate A got 40% of the votes, candidate B got 30% and candidate C got 30%. By your logic candidate A should win the election. Sounds fair. But what if candidate B hadn't taken part in the election, and all his votes had gone to candidate C instead. If we take this as a fact, then it is not candidate A that the people want. It's not the majority which voted for candidate A.
I do think reform is needed, but there's not a simple answer to the prob like that.
Search111add 5 months ago
@kieyrofl Thank you!
melbyRick 5 months ago
@kieyrofl Let me guess, you are from Florida, Cali or New York? <<<< This fool wants to make sure that Utah, Idaho, S Dakota, N. Dakota, Alaska, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana etc. Have NOTHING to do with choosing their president. Yes, he wants to nullify the input of 30% of the country. Idiots like this are ONE ( Aloof ) and TWO (so stupid that they have no idea what they are talking about ).
Crucible0Patriot 5 months ago
@kieyrofl Lame. Runoff voting!
watermelonygoodness 5 months ago
@kieyrofl That makes sense. Democracy is 6 wolves and 4 sheep voting on what's for dinner anyway.
ddddcinc 5 months ago
@kieyrofl I agree with you in pincipal, but I also get that their is a divide between state and poplar vote, sad I know but it is there in the USA. Under this system for Penn, which all states should do in my opinon, the popular vote would matter alot more than the state, so can we say this is a good comproise?
KangaKucha 5 months ago
Okay so the same Electoral Collage that elected two Bush's and Reagan the republicans want to stop wtf?
harr77 5 months ago
Electoral College Sucks! I live in Utah and my vote for President never, ever counts! My vote should count!!!
ScillaSteed 5 months ago
Democracy is tyranny.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
@StinkFingerr volunteer tyranny ;D
secretagentmann9 5 months ago
sign the SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT PETITION ONLINE
MigrantBrute 5 months ago
Get rid of the electoral college and let direct democracy do its work!
Silents30 5 months ago
The Republicans have no business fucking around with our precious electoral college. Bunch of hypocrites.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
When your party represents the interests of only 1% of the population, you have to use every possible trick to win elections.
JEFF9K 5 months ago
Aw Hell! You guys have idealized an Al Gore presidency. That sucker would have crippled the economy with his global warming nonsense even worse than anything Bush did. Al Gore, regardless of the circumstances of the election, would have been a disaster in his own right.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
@StinkFingerr
So you are saying that Gore would have crippled the economy, while Bush definitely crippled the economy (Bush era tax cuts and multiple wars being the main culprits) No offense, but I think Gore (who was the vice president when our country took a deficit under George Bush Sr. and ended the administration with a surplus, but don't let fact's stop you) wouldn't have given overly generous tax cuts to the rich and declare two seperate wars, one being under false pretenses.
moron
Kevlar1983 5 months ago 40
@Kevlar1983 I love the term "surplus"!
What surplus? It's accounting trickery! We didn't go over budget, but we still borrowed to finance everything through out the 90's! We still added to the deficit!
Clinton was probably the smallest government pres. since Carter, but we still bombed countries that we had no business being in. And many of our problems today are related to the Clinton/Greenspan policies!
VictoryCough 5 months ago
@Kevlar1983 well lets see... gore is a fake left wing bilderberg stooge and bush is a fake right wing bilderberg stooge. and both bush and kerry were skull and bonesman. so Yes. yes i do say that Gore would have crippled the economy. just as Obama is doing now and just like the republican stooge who replaces him will do in the future.
failblorg 5 months ago
@Kevlar1983 Both wars being under false pretenses (but don't let the fact's stop you).
MeMyselfAndWhoKnowz 5 months ago
@Kevlar1983 The Clinton administration only managed to balance the budget due to being dragged there, kicking and screaming, by a Republican controlled Congress. A quick check of the facts (as opposed to dem propaganda) shows without doubt that this is true.
I haven't worked since 2 weeks before Zero was elected, thanks to investor memories of Jimmy Carter's Windfall Profits Tax on domestic oil/gas production and the Dems vilifying of corporate aviation.
Zero is just plain bad for business
MachOverspeedsPlace 5 months ago
@Kevlar1983 There was no surplus. It was a projected surplus by the CBO. Which did not exist. Do your homework
joshros 5 months ago
um.....why don't we make it just so who ever gets the most votes wins? i mean wtf is the point of a electoral college anyways? can some one explain, because its not like we need that when we have things like computers who can handle all of it.
appreviewer5 5 months ago
Do the GOP realize that George Bush would have never been elected if it weren't for the electoral college? In a way, that would have been good. Gore would have been more proactive in preventing the attack, no Iraq war, no tax cut for the rich, we wouldn't be calling the rich "job creaters", no economic damage, universal health care passed. It wouldn't be too bad at all...
locutus94 5 months ago
Originally both senators from each state was elected by their respective state legislatures. Since it was changed to popular vote, your state has zero direct representation in congress. The electoral college is the last vestege of representation in presidential elections. I would advocate that one senator be elected by their respective state legislatures to remedy this problem. The alternative is an all-powerful federal government.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
How can a State be an equal partner in the Union, if it is under-represented by dint of a lower population?
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
You have to represent states as well as regions because that is the nature of federalism. Otherwise the unrepresented States have no equal representation & therefore no reason to be contained within this nation. This is supposed to be a union of equal States.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
@StinkFingerr ....and they are represented in the senate. If they don't something to be legislated, they can do it easily in the senate. The president should be the President of the PEOPLE, not the President of the STATES.
Pay attention! this rule was imposed when there were 13-15 states that resembled much closely in terms of population, demographics, etc., not when there were 50 states totally different in economic power, etc. The demographics changed, so should the rule of election.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
Folks,
This argument needs significant focusing: The PA GOP is trying to rig the 2012 elections! How? Graphs will forcefully show a PA sea of blue that results in Rick Perry stealing Pennsylvania!
America is being whipsawed by two political hucksters bought by the greedy elite.
The only sensible approach for every election contest in the foreseeable future is to FIND THE LEAST BOUGHT CANDIDATE AND VOTE THEM IN.
TheLookingOne 5 months ago
I say get rid of the electoral college altogether. We're talking about a system that was conceived before the telegraph. So 200 years ago how did you find out who Maine voted for? Send riders on horseback. Does that system make sense in 2012?
treblitz 5 months ago
If this was applied to every state in the US i would totally support this sincei t would give us a more accurate reading of the countries beliefs and what we want (which could be dangerous but that's democracy for yah). We can't just say we don't want this since it'll inconvenience our chances to win. At the same time we can't just give it to one state saying it'll inconvenience them which is good for us.
skwaag5233 5 months ago in playlist September 14
@fai1tOliv3,
That is absolutely true, but is only an issue if you think "One man,one vote" is some kind of ideal. I do not, nor did the founders.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
Elections have consequences. You liberals pushed Obamacare against our will, and thanks to that brash move on your part, You liberals lost in 2010, and lost many gubernatorial races, and state legeslatures. Now they have the right to change their states districts how they see fit.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 yea that totally makes sense. So because the Steelers lost the super bowl the Packers can take away all their draft picks for the next 4 years right?
happypedro12 5 months ago
@happypedro12 Thats a terrible analogy. The packers won and get top draft picks, but cant take away the Steelers picks because the Packers wernt elected to anything. You libs pushed your socialism on us with Obamacare, and we spoke in the elections. Elections ahve consequences...now your states voting districts and laws, will be changed to fit the GOP needs. Dont like it? Then you shouldnt have shoved Obamacare down our throats.
You forced Obamacare on us...now pay the price. Try to to cry.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 "You libs pushed your socialism on us with Obamacare"
We can understand how informed you are with this statement, which proves my previous post about Americans' being stupid.
Please describe in what terms Obamacare was socialist? No jibberish, I want facts as a list. Oh, but first describe socialism. Because maybe you may not even know what socialism is.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@tansuturdag "
Asking the people who spend so much time hollering about it to define 'socialism' is like asking a dog why it chases it's tail. It's just a generic way for them to say they don't like something or the guy on Fox told them to be scared of it. It's the same thing they did 50 years ago with the word "communism". The definition is irrelevant; it's just something you accuse someone of being so they will be reluctant to support something for fear others might think they are communist.
jimbrown257 5 months ago
@tansuturdag Obama care takes peoples money, and redistributes it to others. That's socialism. It also forces people to buy a service. again, socialism.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 "Obama care takes peoples money, and redistributes it to others. That's socialism. It also forces people to buy a service. again, socialism."
Dude, please stop talking. The more you talk, the more your level of stupidity is exposed. :-))
Also, please tell us how Obamacare takes people's money? And how does it redistribute to the people, especially if "everybody", again everybody is required to buy insurance? Facts please, in a list. No gibberish.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@tansuturdag Obamacare takes care of some people, with other peoples money. THAT is socialism.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 See! You cannot answer the question. I said I wanted facts, not punch lines.
How does Obamacare takes care of some people with other people's money, if everybody has to buy insurance. Please explain.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@tansuturdag Because those who cannot buy insurance because of low income, get free care. Not only that, but goverment dictating that we have to buy something is constitutional? Please.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 "Because those who cannot buy insurance because of low income, get free care. Not only that, but goverment dictating that we have to buy something is constitutional? Please."
Ha, OK! You are one of those guys in the Republican debate who yelled "yeah", when asked if we should let people die, if they don't have insurance. So for you "pro-life" people, if a low income who cannot buy insurance gets sick or into an accident, they should die. Why save them?
Jesus would have wept.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@calimar28 "Because those who cannot buy insurance because of low income, get free care. Not only that, but goverment dictating that we have to buy something is constitutional? Please."
Oh, by the way, that moral obligation did not come with Obamacare. That's called Medicaid and it's been there for decades.
How uninformed you guys can be, but still form opinions about things that you are so informed about?? Sigh.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@calimar28 By purchasing an auto insurance, which you are required by law, are you also taking care of some other people? How, please explain!.
I don't want punch lines, I want EXPLANATIONS. (though I don't think you can. It's obvious you are fed by FoxNews. No knowledge, just talking)
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@calimar28 "Obamacare takes care of some people, with other peoples money. THAT is socialism."
for you to learn socialism:
/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; [1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political of affairs.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@calimar28 I will appreciate if you can tell us whether you get your news from Fox News, because your sentences are exactly like their headline statements.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
It has become fashionable to denegrate the constitution because it is old. That is nonsensical. The constitution's principles are perfectly adaptable to today's world. Good principles are timeless & adhering to them does NOT imply repeating the mistakes of the past, nor abandoning modernity.
The constitution is liberty's lifeline. Discard it @ your peril.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
I am ashamed of my fellow Pennsylvanians for electing these fuckwads into the state government.
SonicobbsessedR2 5 months ago
@SonicobbsessedR2 I'm sorry. American people totally deserve all of this. If you cast your vote according to religious beliefs, you get what you deserve. F'em. They are so dumb that they vote for Obama and then two years later they vote for the party who vowed not to let Obama accomplish anything to shake things up. Yep, they are getting some shaken up country. Ungovernable. Americans totally deserve it.
tansuturdag 5 months ago 2
@tansuturdag Oh boy, I agree. Whenever I see "Americans are stupid" stereotypes, I tend not to object...
SonicobbsessedR2 5 months ago
Why is it tyranny? Because it leaves whole areas unable to influence presidential elections in a meaningful way. Low population States would routinely be out-voted by higher population largely urban States. The promise of equitable representation would cease to operate for these States in presidential elections. THAT is tyranny. The electoral college is the only way to address this conundrum.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
@StinkFingerr
Lets say one district has 8 million and votes republican, they get one vote. Now let's their neighboring district has only 80 thousand and they vote democrat. They also get one vote. It destroys the idea of one person one vote. I don't like the idea of the Electoral College but it has been the better system.
fai1t0liv3 5 months ago
@StinkFingerr Why do you have to represent regions, instead of people? States already use their equality of influence in the Senate. Every state sends two senators regardless of the population. Now, why do you have to do it for presidency, too?
Why would a person in Montana has to have more influence on Presidental Election than a person living in California? Besides, many states don't get any attention during campaign. Does any candidate go to TX? No. Because NH is more important. Why?
tansuturdag 5 months ago
Republicans aren't for a popular vote. They are ONLY proposing this because it hurts the dems. If changing the system would help the democrats they wouldn't even fucking propose it.
@StinkFingerr, exactly. There was a REASON that the electoral college is there.
objectionablechione 5 months ago
One man, one vote is a seductive siren's song,but it leaves whole areas unable to influence presidential elections in a meaningful way. Remember, the electoral college brilliantly balances numerical representation with regional representation.
StinkFingerr 5 months ago
I don't like the electoral college vote, either. But a straight up popular vote is not the answer.
To be honest I kind of like the county-by-county idea. It makes sense. Yes, in PA it would hurt democrats, but elsewhere it could help them. The problem, as pointed out in this video, is that only a couple states currently operate under this system. I actually didn't know NE and ME were doing this already.
NinjaTaco08 5 months ago
@NinjaTaco08 You're kidding, right? You know that if you go county by county, since 20% of the counties form 75% of the population in the US, it means that a president can be elected by the 25% of the population even thought his opponent gets 75% of the vote.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
Let's say Florida. There 67 counties. Obama got only 15 of them but since the population is concentrated there (big cities) he still got the popular vote. Let's assume, each county votes 100% one way, ie. Obama gets 100% of the votes of the counties that he won in 2008 and John McCain gets 100%. In this case, because of population concentration, the total vote count would be Obama 70-75% of the total votes and McCain 25-30%.
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@NinjaTaco08 But since county by county McCain got 52 of the 67 counties, he would get 77% (52/67) of the electorates, meaning only 25% of population electing the 77% of the electorate. And this makes sense to you?
tansuturdag 5 months ago
@tansuturdag You're right, I don't know the facts (if that wasn't clear enough from my original comments).
NinjaTaco08 5 months ago
um im actually for abolishing the electoral college. we should go on popular vote...did everyone just forget george bush?
DrBandrew 5 months ago
I'm actually dismayed that the Republicans would seek to manipulate the electoral college system for short term gain. Shame on them!
StinkFingerr 5 months ago