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.
In reality, because of the electoral college the 2004 election was much closer than if selection was through popular vote.
Originally posted by Ambient Sound I sure don't want NYC, LA, and Chicago (+ 3 or 4 other big cities) deciding things for the rest of us
Originally posted by Ambient Sound
I for one am glad that the Electoral Collage is there. I sure don't want NYC, LA, and Chicago (+ 3 or 4 other big cities) deciding things for the rest of us and that is basically what would happen if the Electoral Collage wasn't there.
Originally posted by curme
So you would rather have two states decide rather than three or four big cities?
Do you think, say if Kerry gets three electoral votes, and Bush two, from one state, that the majority should rule and Kerry get all five? Or would it be best to count electoral votes separately?
Should a plan for elections which was designed for thousands who lived on half of the eastern seaboard over 200 years ago, but used for the millions of current Americans who live all the way to California and beyond?
Some people are like the Amish. Always wanting to live like it was the 18th century.
Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Hmmmm. I feel the design for elections that those men came up with are probably just as good as the rest of the ideas they had about running a country. Ready to scrap those too, Curme? You know, stuff like free speech, the right to life liberty and persuing happiness, all created equal, and so forth.
Originally posted by edsinger
Well I guess if you are on the losing side you dont like the EC, but I think it is a good thing, that way MOB/MASS rule can be controlled, the rural folks in America have a voice also.