Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Unless you're willing to give up the Electoral College, this is still a dumb idea. This would essentially give the Democratic candidate near half the votes needed to win the presidency. With NY and Cali alone would put them almost at 300. This would leave the GOP, or any other candidate, needing to win every other state.
    The Electoral College would consist of about 6300 electors. California and New York combined would have a great deal more than 300 (as would Texas).

    Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:


    Increasing the size of the House would necessarily increase the size of the College.
    Last edited by Arroyo_Doble; 11-14-2012 at 10:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Retread View Post
    And just what would happen to the electoral college? It would be as if it did not exist.
    I would like to revamp the Electoral College to 435 votes. you win the congressional district, you get the vote. It is a more accurate representation of the people in my opinion.
    A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others. Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    The Electoral College would consist of about 6300 electors. California and New York combined would have a great deal more than 300 (as would Texas).

    Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:


    Increasing the size of the House would necessarily increase the size of the College.
    And the most populated cities would pick the president and as we all know, all urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat. While the GOP would carry the midwest, rural, and most suburban areas, all of those would never stack up against places like NY and Cali. Carrying both of those states would sew up the White House for the Dems for eternity so it's easy to see why you think this would be a good idea.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    And the most populated cities would pick the president and as we all know, all urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat. While the GOP would carry the midwest, rural, and most suburban areas, all of those would never stack up against places like NY and Cali. Carrying both of those states would sew up the White House for the Dems for eternity so it's easy to see why you think this would be a good idea.
    How?

    If there are over 6000 electors, you think California and New York get about 3000 of them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    I asked everyone I knew that I thought was going to vote for Barry..."Doesn't exempting himself from Barrycare (the single greatest accomplishment of his presidency, in his mind) send up any kind of red flag for you?"
    And their response?
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    I would like to revamp the Electoral College to 435 votes. you win the congressional district, you get the vote. It is a more accurate representation of the people in my opinion.
    That would certain level the playing field. Right now, California and New York account for roughly one-third of the votes needed for an Electoral majority. That pretty much flies in the face of the original intent of the Electoral College. By breaking down to congressional districts, the states would be less monolithically blue and red, and candidates would have to campaign in swing districts, rather than swing states. It would also put parts of the bigger states into play and make the elections more competitive within them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    How?

    If there are over 6000 electors, you think California and New York get about 3000 of them?
    Roughly the same proportion as they get now. It wouldn't change anything, except the total number of electors, who would still be bound by the same rules.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •