OpticNerd Report post Posted November 7, 2012 What do my fellow hunters think about the Electoral College? Does anyone else here feel that the popular vote would be a better way to elect our presidents? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunterjohnny Report post Posted November 7, 2012 My personal thought, it should be popular. But what do I know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muskrat Report post Posted November 7, 2012 It's disheartening to look at the map and see the center of the country all one color, and the ends another color. That being said, keep in mind that (if I understand it all correctly) if you go by popular vote, be prepared to have every election decided by voters in LA, New York City, Chicago, etc., and the electorate in smaller states and/or more rural states will be even further minimized. I think the electoral college system may need to be tweaked or adjusted, but not done away with altogether. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThomC Report post Posted November 7, 2012 Actually the problem is the bums, the lazy, the criminals, etc. are multiplying faster. We need more birth control, and abortions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scoutm Report post Posted November 7, 2012 It's disheartening to look at the map and see the center of the country all one color, and the ends another color. That being said, keep in mind that (if I understand it all correctly) if you go by popular vote, be prepared to have every election decided by voters in LA, New York City, Chicago, etc., and the electorate in smaller states and/or more rural states will be even further minimized. I think the electoral college system may need to be tweaked or adjusted, but not done away with altogether. That's already the case. If you looked at the red/blue map the only areas that were blue where the large cities...Just look at Ohio - I don't know how many counties there are but only about a dozen of them went blue - Cinncinatie, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo...the rest was red. Large cities are deciding the outcomes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted November 7, 2012 If went to popular we would forever be at the mercy of New York, California Illinios and Florida. No one else would get a second of attention. We need to do like Maine and Nebraska and split their electoral college per congressional district. That way it is not winner take all in states like CA and New York, Texas, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Non-Typical Solutions Report post Posted November 7, 2012 If went to popular we would forever be at the mercy of New York, California Illinios and Florida. No one else would get a second of attention. We need to do like Maine and Nebraska and split their electoral college per congressional district. That way it is not winner take all in states like CA and New York, Texas, etc. That is what I say as well...........give rural america at having a say............ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
POB Report post Posted November 7, 2012 George Bush lost the popular vote but Florida gave him the white house. It's happened before and will probably happen again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted November 7, 2012 I don't claim to be the most educated about this entire process, and this is all just off the top of my head BUT... For the life of me I can not see how in 2008 or 2012 more AMERICANS voted for the republican candidate, yet Obama won both elections. I can not wrap my head around how that is the correct way to do things. In ohio you can show up the day of the election with a nothing but a utility bill and vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
POB Report post Posted November 7, 2012 From what I can find Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by around 500,000. He won by 3 mil in 2004.Obama won by 10 mil in 2008 and by around 3 mil yesterday. The guys who wrote the constitution came up with the electoral college to give small states equal power in the election process. Bush used it to perfection in 2000, and Obama did the same in the last two elections. If we go to the popular vote Calif. and New York will be the only states that matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kaibabkiller Report post Posted November 7, 2012 I say do away with all electoral, count EVERYONE'S vote then show us a winner. As it sits now, the presidential seat is won before some polls are closed!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Non-Typical Solutions Report post Posted November 7, 2012 As long as voter ID verification is as non-existant as it is........................who knows what is really out there...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GingerRam Report post Posted November 7, 2012 I personally think the way to deal with both the EC as well as the major population centers ruling the vote would be to give each state/territory a single vote. Have each state vote for President as we do now (correct ID would be appreciated) and whomever wins the popular vote for the state would get that states 1 vote. This way, Arizona, Wyoming, Alaska, Puerta Rico whatever would be on a level playing field with New York, California, Ohio, Florida etc... Would this be perfect? Heck no. I do think it would still have the same "inter-state" weighting, i.e. the population centers in Ohio would still have given their "single vote" to Obama despite the disparity in actual "real estate" between the two. The leveling would come from the fact that it would weigh only as much anyone else. I know folks in densely populated would start complaining that their vote, due to numbers, would only count as a fraction of those votes in more rural states but that would be BS as the counting would be done at the state level.. Sorry for the rant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Non-Typical Solutions Report post Posted November 7, 2012 I personally think the way to deal with both the EC as well as the major population centers ruling the vote would be to give each state/territory a single vote. Have each state vote for President as we do now (correct ID would be appreciated) and whomever wins the popular vote for the state would get that states 1 vote. This way, Arizona, Wyoming, Alaska, Puerta Rico whatever would be on a level playing field with New York, California, Ohio, Florida etc... Would this be perfect? Heck no. I do think it would still have the same "inter-state" weighting, i.e. the population centers in Ohio would still have given their "single vote" to Obama despite the disparity in actual "real estate" between the two. The leveling would come from the fact that it would weigh only as much anyone else. I know folks in densely populated would start complaining that their vote, due to numbers, would only count as a fraction of those votes in more rural states but that would be BS as the counting would be done at the state level.. Sorry for the rant. It is one of those ranting days.............................. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JLW Report post Posted November 7, 2012 49,426 people voted for rosanne barr! A total of 1,783,786 voted for other than the top 2 candidates! WTH! don't they realize there are consequences when you do stupid things???? I know it is their right as an american, but that is plain stupid! not that it made a difference just thought I'd throw that out. I'll spare you my rant for now. I'm soooo disgusted and disappointed that I'm sick to my stomach! It's like someone said " I feel like I was punched in the gut " http://www.google.co...s/ed/us/results James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.c7158656ad48b7037e361e5e71bdf0d3.jpg)