If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. It’s certainly no surprise that the Electoral College vs. popular vote controversy has sparked considerable debate. As the issue surfaces heading into November, is it time to graduate from the Founding Father's Electoral College concept, or are popularity contests no way to choose a president?
There are certainly numerous particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a nice point to deliver up. I offer the ideas above as general inspiration however clearly there are questions like the one you convey up where the most important factor shall be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged round things like that, but I'm certain that your job is clearly recognized as a fair game. Each boys and girls really feel the affect of only a moment?s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.
HGH otalgia Electronic cigarette harmful hydropic Free Porn interiorize
The answer to this is simple. If you want the major metropolitan areas to control this country, then opt for popular vote. If you want the vote weighted so that everybody's vote counts, then go with the Electoral College.
It is still a tough one then,, isnt it !
kitchens
having a great electoral system is a must. Let us put first in our thinking that in this way we can eliminate or reduce corrupt officials elected.
Dreamweaver CS4 tutorial | Dreamweaver Training course
You are true about this and I exactly thinking of the same thing.
Swimming Pools Brisbane
How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. Louis Vuitton UK
I totally agree with you due to his popularity he will be the US president.|Affordable research paper|
|Write my research paper|
If individuals want to give themselves to be superlative in their lack of influence, then the Electoral College should be discontinued. However, if we want to maximize the influence of the smallest member of the voting public and therefore human dignity, then the College is vital. We are not a Nation State but a Nation of States. Be not deceived!
It is discovered that so many of the conventional universities have struggled to draw interests of students in the past decade, with simply the rich and the traditional choosing to send their sons and daughters into old-style universities. With modern colleges of education, and several other types of university being established, it is no wonder that people are deciding the more cost-efficient method of getting their education
Accredited Online Colleges :: Essay Editing
Excellent entry! I'm been looking for topics as interesting as this. Looking forward to your next post and i think the choosing of president is not a simple task and this person having great influence on future correspondence of college.Essay Help
Essay Help
High PR Backlinks
Good article and great site.
I only have one quick piont. Massachusettes recently voted to use the popular vote. If this law had been in effect when Nixon was elected there would have been no bumper stickers. When Nixon was elcted the whole country (excluding Ma and another state) voted for nixon. If there had been no electoral collage Ma would have also voted for Nix. When watergate happended the citizens of Ma where so happy that they had not voted for nixon and made the right choise that they created a bumper sticker saying "Don't blame me i'm from Ma" If this were to go into effect in enough states everyone in a certain state could vote for person a but if the Pop. vote went to person B the state would have to give their votes to that person.
It's simple so continue the sharing of information in future also.
Assignment Writing Service
The states of our union are the entities that are intended to elect a president. The states and their sovereignty are preserved through the electoral system. I personally favor the original arrangement, where the State Legislatures chose their electors.
Democracy is an evil that must be avoided, lest we repeat the catastrophic failures of ALL of the Democracies iin history .
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support , while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law , it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote . Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections , the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections , but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a " democracy ."
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government . The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.
The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution : "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election .
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since the 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote , everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections .
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
People - are you forgetting that WE ARE THE PEOPLE not ELECTORAL VOTEs. If we continue with electoral voting - why would I continue to vote - this nullifies my personal vote. As for CA - you need to remember - they may be a large population vote, but because of the Dem's most of them are illegals and can not vote, therefore making that conversation mute.
I say do away with electoral and put the elections back in the peoples hands where it should be!
A great document we all love begins: "We, the People,"--That's us--"of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union.." Union of what--People or States? Obviously it is talking about states. The election of President has gone from a leader of a Union of States to a leader of welfare reform structured to the passion of the people. A switch to a popular vote seems like the next domino to fall and it scares me to death. I'm by no means an expert, but the history strikes me: It seems ever since the close of the Civil War, a push away from true Federalism (a collection of states united under a federal government with both state of Federal governments possessing certain powers) to a Nationalist system (a single government directing the lives of the people) has and is taking place. (See the Civil War Amendments [13-15], Progressive Era Amendments [16-17,19], etc.) The way I see it, when they dissolve the state lines, that is when we can go to a straight popular vote because that is when it would be the United People and not the United States. With the turbulent times foreseen ahead, now is not the time to test out a drastic change in election of the most powerful position on earth. I do see the constitution as a work-in-process and times will perhaps necessitate alteration; however, I do not see a change to a straight popular vote as a wise alteration. The "Father of our Nation" in his farewell address warned about changes in government, saying that we should "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious [OR alluring] the pretexts." He went on to say, "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard.."(1) As George Washington would know, time, habit, and experience are vital. Sadly most Americans lack the experience to say which is better for the nation and those that do may be out voiced (I'm not saying I do).
Thanks for everyone's comments.
(1) http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html (see verse 19)
As another resident of the Midwest, I also believe it is only due to the Electoral College that candidates set foot in small rural states at all. Popular vote always sounds good, until you work out the details.
It's obvious that many people are frustrated by the Electoral College system, usually because they don’t understand it. It feels so arbitrary and doesn’t make sense to most people. The truth, however, is that it was established to protect us from mob-rule. No, not mob as in gangsters and thugs, but mobs as in angry masses of people trying to out-yell the rest of the people. Simply put, it was established to prevent the major cities like New York, Miami, Chicago, Las Angeles, and the like from dictating every election while the rest of the country can’t get a word in edge-wise. Our country is simply too big, and too diverse for direct voting to be successful, hence why the Electoral College was established to maintain balance. That doesn’t mean the system is perfect, however.
Here’s the solution: Instead of the winner takes the state, the winner should take the district. That is, our states are already divided into political districts due to the election of representatives in Congress. When a presidential election happens, each district’s representatives should do their job and be required to vote based on their constituency. If their district votes for John Smith, then the representatives for that district should vote for John Smith in the Electoral College vote.
This is a very fair way to provide more direct, popular voting while still ensuring the protections that the college system offers us in the first place.
Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
As a NJ resident who sits back helpelessly while my state goes blue each and every election I should be more in favor of a popular vote system to make my vote actually count. However, given the fact that most other countries follow popular vote.. and they usually have somewhere between 19-50 different political parties who can't agree on anything.. I am in favor of sticking to the electoral college. If Europe is an example.. give me Electoral College anyday. Popular vote is an issue that only gets attention when Democrats continually lose elections as they're looking for other ways to stack the deck in their favor. This is why it's usually the blue states, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois that want to pass legislation to give their states electors to the popular while at the same time, obstructing any attempt by Republicans in California to split up that states 55.
Strict adherance to popular voting will still only cause focus on the very largest states leaving the smaller ones without any campaign activity. The way to achieve broader political activity around the country would be to allocate the electors based on the % of votes received in that state for each candidate. We currently have that system in several states and it assures that the minority votes have a meaning in each states representation at the electoral college. The issue of larger states having more electoral votes does not change and it shouldn't because those states have more citizens. The ratio of electors to voters should be the same across the country.
wrigley
There is a way to change the current voting system to make it more representative of the whole US population. It requires a change to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to :
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of -Senators- to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
This change effectively gives each State, as a sovereign entity, an equal franchise in selecting the President and Vice President. On the State scale, each person would be better represented and provided more individual local power per vote in the electoral process as each voting person represents a larger group (of those who choose to or choose not to vote) on the State scale than on the National scale. On the National scale, each state would be equally represented by the electorate and have equal power in choosing the President/Vice President. While the candidates gaining the majority of electorates would still be elected, no small number of states with larger populations could control the electorate over a larger number of smaller states. There would essentially be 50 games in the election of which 26 must be won (probably actually slightly more giving due recognition to DC and the territories to participate as well). This, I believe would action would provide a more balanced representative government requiring the President/Vice President, and the political parties, to be more responsive and work towards the greater good of the entire country.
We could actually minimize the impact of the East and West Coast liberals if we gave the winner and loser a percentage of the electors matching the popular vote. California has like 54 votes...you know that the Republicans can get at least 20-30% of the popular vote there so we could earn 9-16 electors instead of none...every year.
This would force both parties to campaign in all 50 states and you know after a while you might even see some changes in the liberal/conservative percentages. The best way to support your views is to learn more about the opposition. But when the libs are only hearing from and speaking with libs there will never be a change.
thanks,
Stan
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state's bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
..and ended up screwing us over for the past 8 years. I think that's evidence enough that the electoral college just does not work.
I live in a state that is largely republican (Texas), and I'm a democrat (even though I'll probably vote republican in this election). I've voted democrat the past two times, and my vote didn't count for a darn thing because our electoral votes went to dumb bunny Bush.
I live in Utah, where the majority of voters vote straight Republican ticket. My vote for Barack Obama in November will do nothing to help make him president, because all the electoral college votes will go to John McCain. I can do nothing but donate money to help Obama's campaign, because my vote doesn't count.
AT THE VERY LEAST, the electoral college in my state should break down by percentages, so that voters who want to support Barack Obama can actually matter. That would encourage both candidates to actually campaign here - neither of them bothered much, since they know it won't make a difference. How is that a free America? How is that OK?
You cannot invalidate my vote and still be a truly functioning and fair democracy.
Everyone likes to say that Gore won the Popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College. Who cares? The national popular vote is a Non-Sequiter and a red herring because it plays no role in our election system. Every vote already counts, but it is on a state-by-state basis. The popular vote of each state determines which candidate wins that state's Electors. It isn't that hard to understand. Everyone will still make a big deal over the national popular vote, even though it is irrelevant. This country is not, nor has it ever been, a "democracy." The Founding Fathers viewed democracy as nothing better than "mob rule," and wisely chose to establish a "Constitutional Republic" rather than a "Democracy."
I would vote for a popular vote system. I currently live in a state where my vote is in the minority, and I would like my vote to count more than it does.
It elected Bush to the presidency, despite the fact that more Americans voted for Gore.
Any Questions?
Your reasoning is flawed. We simply don't know who would have one the 2000 election if the popular vote system had been in effect. If it had, both parties would have campaigned differently, and the outcome will never be known. It's like saying that some football games would have a different outcome if we counted touchdowns and field goals differently than we do. Any game would be played differently if different scoring rules are in effect, so such hypotheticals are never logically valid conclusions.
People point to the 2000 election as a weakness of the system and then declare "case closed" as if one example alone is enough to discredit a system which has been in place for hundreds of years. Instead of closing your mind after one bad experience, please think rationally about which system would work better in the long run.
I do agree that the 2000 vote was questionable and unfortunate. However, this does not cause me to abandon my reason and turn to the first obvious alternative without considering the implications.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections . Candidates have no reason to poll , visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
I am not sure that the system would work in the long run. I think that every person should have there vote counted. I do not understand why that would not be the standard system.
You said that this system has been in place for hundreds of years. The reason that the electoral college was created was because during the first elections there was no effective and standardized form of voting. The states were better equipped to count their own votes, and because states population was a much simpler way to assign value to their votes, that was what was done.
Today, votes are counted electronically with a small margin of error. 126 million people voted in the 2004 election. Over half of those votes were counted in less than a day. With all the technology that we have today, why even break the voting down into states? What does it matter what state they live in. The reason that the electoral college is still in place is because the small states like having more power then they should compared to their size. But if states are not assigned power (only the individual) then i don't see the problem.
And as the title suggests, what would the implications of having everyones vote count for one vote be exactly? I am curious what you think would happen.
(I recognize that’s an understatement but in a sense, the electoral college can work and be a more true representative of the country than either the popular vote and the current electoral college.
I would keep the Electoral College but award the elector votes based on each Congressional District. It’s already being done. It would be interesting to compile data from the 2000 & 2004 elections and see who would have won with a system like this one. Both elections were quite close. It would be along the lines of each House of Representative is picked. The house was in Republican control them but I'm not convinced the Presidential results would have been the same.
The problems are;
1. Each state wood have to abandon the "winner takes all" system as it is now. But, I don’t see that happening in the near future.
2. No matter how vicious Democrat & Republican parties spar together, they will combine forces to keep the two party system, IMO..
CA, NY & Big population states have more electoral votes - so if you live in Montana - you're vote hardly counts (Honestly in most cases if you stayed home from the polls - it's hard to think you're state's 3 votes will matter too much). I live in NJ - and it drives me NUTS to always read that it's a done deal here (our votes) for Obama. I'm voting for McCain - sometimes you feel like your vote didn't count because it got overpowered by all the Democratic votes in the state. The Electoral College is outdated; we live in a technology savvy world - everyone's vote should be counted. My vote for McCain should be counted amongst all the other people in the USA who voted for him, not cancelled out by the Obama votes in NJ.
We have more votes than NY and we usually vote opposite of CA, NY, & the East Coast. Unless they vote the right way.
We need to just secede and leave the rest to their mess anyways. With Barrack Hussein Osama, Pelosi the Poodle, and Reid the Nerd running the Country we are doomed. I see gun registration and collection, United Nations total gun ban, rampant abortion, higher taxes, more affirmative action, as well as the end of the death penalty in our future if the dems win in November.
Under a national popular vote scheme, your vote could be canceled out (in your way of thinking) by losing the national election just the same as it is today when you lose the state-based election.
With the Electoral College, your vote counts.. toward electing your state's electors. If your vote, and everyone else in NJ who voted the same way, doesn't count up as high as some other candidate's votes, then you lose. Campaign harder next time, but your vote is counted--it counts--either way.
The question is, I believe, what kind of future do you want for your country? Will you a increase the risk of factional, regional, and radical politics in exchange for this new scheme for national elections?
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support , while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.
And antiquated. Who defines "radical" politics? In my state, I am a radical because I am a liberal. Is that fair? The electoral college guarantees divisive politics that arbitrarily repress my voice. In a national election, everyone should matter, even if you disagree with what I want. That's a free society.
Alisaterry..Thank You! I may not agree with your politics, but when I vote, I'm singing Solo; I'm not singing as part of a choir.
The 2 dominant parties won't let us drop the antiquated electoral college because it keeps them in a duopoly. We need to drop the electoral college and have a national primary and run-off. 51% should be required for a president to take office. Not 50.5% and certainly not 47% + 1 intern. Meanwhile, the dems and repubs agree, keep the college. We're stuck.