It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by radardog
The interesting implications are as follows:
1. anyone realistically has a chance of being president.
2. Party voting is over -- you vote for a person's views and not their party.
3. Millions will not be spent in primaries, advertisements, etc.
4. Electoral College is over; not more red or blue states.
5. The voter has a true scientific sampling of the American people to evaluate which person represents America the best.
Originally posted by OXmanK
Smaller states are irrelevent today. Do you think that Bush or Kerry really cared about Wyoming? Don't you think they care more about the Orlando area or Atlanta? [snip]
Originally posted by OXmanK
The EC creates the problem with battle ground states. It should not matter how many states you carry. It should matter whether or not the majority of America wants you to run their country. In theory, thanks to the EC, someone can be beaten by up to, if not more, votes and still assume the presidency. Let's just say a worst case scenario, Kerry won Ohio kept all of the other states he won. Also, lets say that he received no votes in the other states. (I know it is statistically impossible, but like I said...worst case scenario.) [emphasis added]
First off, I swiped the election results from two pages. One was CNN...but they didn't have a grand total of each candidate.
Originally posted by OXmanK
You are taking my example as wrong.
I said, or missaid, Kerry gets to keep the votes in the states he wins. Bush keeps the votes he receives in the kerry states as well. Kerry loses the votes in all of the other states. My math is right. So, how about you go back to your blackboard, eh?
Eat it Urkel...
...the E.C. result did not harm the will of the people-...
I dislike the Electoral College. It is of no real value today. It makes states worth more to candidates, which in turn makes an individual vote worth less if you live in one of those states that are obviously going one way. (See Texas, Louisiana, Massachussetts, California) I would rather the politicians try to appeal to the masses rather than the masses of two or three states.
Originally posted by OXmanK
I'll drop the improbable one, if you agree that we could have a president elected with a 10-20 percent deficit in the popular vote. And that one is not that far fetched. 45% vs 55%, with the earlier getting the nod is very possible and I am suprised we have yet to see it.
Cause if Kerry would have won without Popular Vote, I think we would have had an outright Civil War or at least a few heads on stakes.
And due to those situations we have a 4.65% chance of error. Roughly one out of every twenty elections has the result against the people.
Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
Don't think I want just anyone to be president. The average American, imo and self-inclusive, is an idiot. The large majority of us have no idea how to govern our own lives much less a nation of 180M. The president doesn't just sit around and make decisions, he has to organize a cabinet and staff to help manage Congress and an enormous beauracracy.
Biggest problem with that is the fact that Congress is still a two party system. Any proposal from a third-party president would likely be DOA. What would the point of that be?
Then what would the farmers in Iowa and the old folks in CT do every 4 years? Like it or not, presidential politics is a nice way for some places and organizations to make money.
I actually think the Electoral College is still a good idea. Without it, small states like the one I live in are completely irrelevant. Candidates would completely ignore the bulk of the country and focus on places like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. An interesting trend that others have no doubt noted elsewhere is that the Dem candidate in the last 2 elections carried nearly every major city, but lost nearly all rural areas.