#41
What would be your preferred method?Originally Posted by ca90ss
#42
There is no perfect system. The electoral college is the most fair way of doing it. In theory it doesn't favor one over the other. That's another thing that makes this country and our system better than other countries. It's why we can have more diversity here than other countries. We can absorb that in our system and can allow more immigrants to become citizens. It's also why we are seeing the demise of Europe as we speak even though most don't realize it. Once the muslim population in the European countries is high enough to win the popular vote, no more European culture. This isn't happening by coincidence. The muslim immigrants know this. Their birth rates are at or just over 4 per person/woman whereas European birth rates have collapsed to an avg of 1.5 per woman/person. It takes just over 2 births per woman on avg to maintain your heritage. It's a simple matter of math. Europe is dying off. Germany for example will lose 1/4 of it's heritage in the next 25-30 yrs. What we know as Europe today will be muslim in the future if those countries don't change their immigration policies and fast. Scientist are ringing the alarm bell about this but so far Europe isn't listening. So those that think the electoral college is a bad thing should do some reading. Our founders knew we are a country of immigrants and planned accordingly. Like I said, those guys were really smart
#43
I wouldn't be opposed to a similar system to Australia. In lieu of that I wouldn't be opposed to the electoral votes from each state split based on the vote from within the state so if a states voters vote 55/45 then the electoral votes from that state would be split 55/45. That would encourage republicans in states like California to vote and democrats in states like Alabama to vote that otherwise wouldn't.
#44
#45
I hear that "the founding fathers were smart" statement all the time...
There are two problems with that:
1) ... (removed)
2) if I recall correctly, the postal service in the 1770's was not what it is today. Morse code was not even fielded until around the crimean war 150 years ago. And the internet was not invented by CERN (or Dan Quail)...
So back in the day, they strove for a solution to have the constituency represented in somewhat a timely manner given the speed of horses, and manual counting.
Whether or not there are more factors for equalling out states rights I would have to look into.
However it would still be possible to have preference voting that fed into an electoral college.
The big change is that 3rd party candidates can represent...
So a democrate could vote:
1: HRC
2: Gary Johnson
3: DJT
The republicans:
1: DJT
2: Gary Johnson
3: HRC
and the independent could vote:
1: Gary Johnson
2:
3:
... and sometimes the Gary Johnson's get through.
#46
#47
Actually , jettyman , Donald Trump is going to take a break for the next four years to see if "Pelosi" retires !
He is worn out and upset after his first term.
#48
Yes the founding fathers were smart. Smarter than you or me or anyone we know.
#49
Nah, he's a fighter. The next shitshow will be when Ginsburg dies and gets replaced. Just waiting for that one.
#50
The by hand counting w3rks well with hanging chads (perforated punched holes) in Florida , @ least for dubbya when lil brother was there ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote