In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. The fact that Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all rule is a reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. The winner-take-all system is not in the Constitution.
If the electoral college is not seated by Senators or Representatives, Then who are these state appointed people? Are they Lawyers, Judges, Business Men & Women? Does anyone know? Can I be on the electoral college? The troubling part is that these people are NOT REQUIRED to vote as the majority in their state did. Unless you trust these APPOINTED people who you do not vote for and don't know, your vote for the president doesn't count for shit. PARTY FAITHFUL???
There's nothing wrong with the Electoral College per se. What really messes it up is the winner-take-all racket with which the Big Two Parties hijacked it. They bet to win all a state's electors by winning the minimal statewide majority. This was the real cause of the 2000 Fiasco and is why the Democrats never called for reform after that election. Recounts, yes, but never reform.
i am so confused :sdddddddddd
rosakwak96 2 years ago
In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
NationalPopularVote
mvymvymvy 2 years ago
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. The fact that Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all rule is a reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. The winner-take-all system is not in the Constitution.
mvymvymvy 2 years ago
If the electoral college is not seated by Senators or Representatives, Then who are these state appointed people? Are they Lawyers, Judges, Business Men & Women? Does anyone know? Can I be on the electoral college? The troubling part is that these people are NOT REQUIRED to vote as the majority in their state did. Unless you trust these APPOINTED people who you do not vote for and don't know, your vote for the president doesn't count for shit. PARTY FAITHFUL???
DamonShivers83 3 years ago
There's nothing wrong with the Electoral College per se. What really messes it up is the winner-take-all racket with which the Big Two Parties hijacked it. They bet to win all a state's electors by winning the minimal statewide majority. This was the real cause of the 2000 Fiasco and is why the Democrats never called for reform after that election. Recounts, yes, but never reform.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
Actually, he really didn't explain anything.
boiiinng 3 years ago
Very good explaination!
ImakeMyREALITY 3 years ago