USA National Elections

[pirana 0]

Quote

ALL of them is more important than debates on the Electoral system with people that don't even understand why it was made that way in the first place and then argue against it with improvised points worthy of a 3rd grader.

I made an improvised point the other evening in my garage; then got it jammed under my fingernail while sanding a piece of furniture. Geez did that smart!

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[birdlike 0]

Quote

So which should we do?

Althought I shudder to think of the industrious ways the fucking scumbags who now live in this world will come up with to DEFRAUD a popular vote, that's what I clicked, because I think it's the right way to be electing government. We'll just have to try our best to keep the fraud at bay.

I know it's not likely, but we'd have to try.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

>If it were up to solely popular vote, then NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles
>would be the sole factors in the election.

"Los Angeles" is not a person. We should count everyone's vote, not every square mile's vote.

I never said they were a person.

New York City, New York 8,274,527
Los Angeles, California 3,834,340
Chicago, Illinois 2,836,658

Taking these city populations, not including the immediate outlying area, into consideration...the densely populated areas are hardly a disputed political mindset. The cities are more liberal leaning. A popular vote system puts well more than 15% of the vote in one parties' corner.

This assumes one of the parties is so much more liberal than the other that they'd win 100% of the vote in the cities. I don't see any reason to believe that.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)