|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Nov 13, 2004 2:12:58 GMT -5
Problem is, when a state is actually "secure" that usually means that it will, in fact, go how it's predicted. NJ was, for brief periods during this election, a swing state. Obviously, it didn't last.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Nov 13, 2004 13:35:13 GMT -5
You're missing the point though, Bass. If every vote in that state counted, those 12000 votes for Bush would actually count for something, even if there were 50000 votes for Kerry. Currently, a good chunk of those 12000 probably choose not vote because they know there is no way in heck they can beat 50000. As a result, less people vote overall. This is why many states are looking at splitting their electoral votes proportionately rather than the current winner-takes-all system, and this policy is something to be advocated. It gives Republicans in New York and Democrats in Texas a reason to vote.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Nov 13, 2004 15:13:20 GMT -5
True....
But that's putting it one step closer to just simply doing it by popular vote - it allows the vote power to come from smaller groups. Eventually, those groups would end up at 1 per group, and we'd have popular vote, which isn't a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by SpasticChicken on Nov 15, 2004 14:01:05 GMT -5
You people sure aren't afraid to use the first amendment...
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Nov 15, 2004 19:48:34 GMT -5
That's probably a good thing.
I still think Devo overstates the case against the popular vote notion. I mean, the current system just shifts the focus and false promises from areas with large populations to swing states; it doesn't do away with it, just relocate it.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Nov 16, 2004 10:44:53 GMT -5
The best way to do things, from the standpoint of pure fairness, is a popular vote.
Last time I checked, the states weren't separate countries -- I don't see why Ohio's vote should count any differently than Virginia's.
|
|
|
Post by AnimaStone on Dec 14, 2004 15:45:39 GMT -5
Since some people seem absolutely fixated on keeping the Electoral vote, how about this: each state keeps its electoral vote value, then each candidate gets the percent of that number equal to the percent of the vote he received in that state, rounding in favor of whoever won. That way, it keeps the electoral college junkies happy because they think it still works, and it represents the popular vote better. And about the 2000 election. On a History test, an EC question asked what decides the outcome of the election if each candidate ties in electoral votes. I put "the Supreme Court, as of 2000." My teacher took points off for that . EBP: Merged double post.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Dec 14, 2004 19:41:39 GMT -5
And about the 2000 election. On a History test, an EC question asked what decides the outcome of the election if each candidate ties in electoral votes. I put "the Supreme Court, as of 2000." My teacher took points off for that . That's because you were wrong. The electoral college was not tied in 2000; Bush won it clearly. The question was always whether or not to let there be a recount of Florida to see if Bush or Gore had really won the state overall. The incident you wanted to mention was in 1800 when Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied for votes, but that was decided by the House of Representatives, not the Court. That's why your teacher took off marks.
|
|
|
Post by AnimaStone on Dec 14, 2004 20:20:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I know that. But it was an extra credit question. In other words, a place to put whatever you want if you don't know the answer and not lose points. *grumble* [expletive] conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Dec 15, 2004 8:58:45 GMT -5
You do realize that you can swear on this site, right Animastone? BTW, if I were your teacher, I would've given you the extra credit anyway just because you made me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Dec 15, 2004 10:14:59 GMT -5
BTW, if I were your teacher, I would've given you the extra credit anyway just because you made me laugh. And to this Conservatives would grumble about Liberals... Anyway, I missed the Extra Credit thing on your question. Here in Canada we just call it bonus, so the only EC I'm familiar with is Eric Clapton. Taking marks off of other stuff for that does seem wrong.
|
|
|
Post by AnimaStone on Dec 15, 2004 13:20:11 GMT -5
I'm supposed to study that, too? And the final's TOMORROW? *dies* Heh... Pinata as my teacher. That makes me laugh, too. I don't know if anyone involved would ever be the same.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Dec 15, 2004 19:42:33 GMT -5
I'm supposed to study that, too? And the final's TOMORROW? *dies* Quick! Name five bands he has played in! It's a matter of life and death!
|
|
|
Post by AnimaStone on Dec 16, 2004 14:22:16 GMT -5
*dies again*
|
|
|
Post by Belgarath on Dec 16, 2004 22:04:59 GMT -5
Pfft, that's easy Elfie! 1. The Beatles 2. AC/DC 3. Blink 182 4. Backstreet Boys 5. Spice Girls Duh
|
|