Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
Link to this comment:
Share to:
Loading...
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
also cato, the senate IS now elected by DIRECT POPULAR vote per (i think) the 19th amendment. correct me if i'm wrong, but the Senate IS elected by direct popular vote by the people. The President is the ONLY ELECTED OFFICIAL that does not have to win the majority of voters over the area which they are allowed to govern
flylike1 2 years ago
@flylike1 17th
cannonbrooke 9 months ago
cato, i have a response to your claim that "consistancy would require that we abolish the senate as well"
that's incorrect.
the senate is in place to balance the interest's of small state's as well as large ones. if there were no senate for small state's to gain equal representation the representatives from the more populous states could dictate to the smaller ones.
the senate arose out of the "checks & balances" idea- to keep groups from getting to powerful
flylike1 2 years ago
Rob Richie is an idiot. He makes an argument about campaigning that SUPPORTS the Electoral College system. If Presidential elections were based on the national popular vote, canidates would only campaign in Texas, California, New York and possibly Florida. Why campaign is fidgid Wyoming or rainy Washington when those vote won't really contribute anything?
Shephild 3 years ago
candidates currently have no reason to campaign in states such as texas, california, new york, most of the south, most of the northeast, but instead focusing on swing states (that the electoral college's winner-take-all system creates) like ohio, florida, and pennsylvania.
Candidates would have to campaign to and win over ALL undecided voters across the nation. as it stands now they only care about undecided voters in swing states. one vote does not equal one vote.
flylike1 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
candidates currently have no reason to campaign in states such as texas, california, new york, most of the south, most of the northeast, but instead focusing on swing states (that the electoral college's winner-take-all system creates) like ohio, florida, and pennsylvania.
Candidates would have to campaign to and win over ALL undecided voters across the nation. as it stands now they only care about undecided voters in swing states. one vote does not equal one vote.
flylike1 2 years ago
@Shephild That's not logical. If ALL votes are equal then they are equal it gets rid of the value of states unlike NOW....
ChummyJermel 1 year ago
Our liberty-minded constitutional democratic-republic must be defended before we fall completely down the oligarchy rabbit hole.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Sounds like a name that would be on a sample ballot.
John Q. Samples.
MooseOfReason 3 years ago
Hey Rob Richie,America is not a mob rule democracy it's a constitutional republic.Our founding fathers hated demorcracy.
unodepoalli 3 years ago 4
Without the electoral college then only a few cities would get support.
wwwdotLPdotorg 3 years ago