It's May 14, 2024, 07:31:20 PM
DaBoss - you're clearly not grasping the concept here. Who gives a flying fuck what the majority of a state votes? If there is no electoral college, individual votes would never be discarded. The populous would decide who wins the presidency. My vote means jack shit in the electoral college if i'm a minority (meaning voting in the minority) in my voting district. MY VOTE DOESN'T FACTOR INTO WHO GETS ELECTED. If it were the individuals voting, my vote would be tallied along with every other person's vote. It may be a raindrop in the ocean, but it still counts. The electoral college isn't a representation of individuals, its representative of a region. And to me, thats not fair. Since you ducked my question earlier, i'll repeat it: DO YOU NOT SEE FLAW IN A SYSTEM THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ELECT A PRESIDENT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL VOTES?
No one knows the answer to the question? For a mod, 7even sure goes off topic a lot in threads.
because america is the shit thats why.....you have posted 53 times in one day? You need some friends.
If no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.
Quote from: Fathom on October 21, 2004, 05:18:23 PMIf no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.
Quote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 21, 2004, 05:20:10 PMQuote from: Fathom on October 21, 2004, 05:18:23 PMIf no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.No problem. It comes down to a simple vote. The candidate with the two thirds majority would be the new president elect. If the House can't come to a concensus it then moves on to the supreme court. The fact that the two party system is ingrained into American politics; the House may never have to vote. A thrid party would have to become popular enough to recieve electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 minimum.
Quote from: Fathom on October 21, 2004, 05:29:37 PMQuote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 21, 2004, 05:20:10 PMQuote from: Fathom on October 21, 2004, 05:18:23 PMIf no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.No problem. It comes down to a simple vote. The candidate with the two thirds majority would be the new president elect. If the House can't come to a concensus it then moves on to the supreme court. The fact that the two party system is ingrained into American politics; the House may never have to vote. A thrid party would have to become popular enough to recieve electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 minimum.Interesting, thanks.
Quote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 21, 2004, 05:42:59 PMQuote from: Fathom on October 21, 2004, 05:29:37 PMQuote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 21, 2004, 05:20:10 PMQuote from: Fathom on October 21, 2004, 05:18:23 PMIf no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.No problem. It comes down to a simple vote. The candidate with the two thirds majority would be the new president elect. If the House can't come to a concensus it then moves on to the supreme court. The fact that the two party system is ingrained into American politics; the House may never have to vote. A thrid party would have to become popular enough to recieve electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 minimum.Interesting, thanks.Any more questions just ask. I would have expected more people would have known that tid bit of knowledge considering this is the train of thought section.
Lincoln, that's ok and actually respectable. It's better that you ask, rather than make dumb, ignorant remarks. (ex: 7even the Hairbinger, Rampant)
Quote from: Jrome The Damaja on October 21, 2004, 11:00:01 AMDaBoss - you're clearly not grasping the concept here. Who gives a flying fuck what the majority of a state votes? If there is no electoral college, individual votes would never be discarded. The populous would decide who wins the presidency. My vote means jack shit in the electoral college if i'm a minority (meaning voting in the minority) in my voting district. MY VOTE DOESN'T FACTOR INTO WHO GETS ELECTED. If it were the individuals voting, my vote would be tallied along with every other person's vote. It may be a raindrop in the ocean, but it still counts. The electoral college isn't a representation of individuals, its representative of a region. And to me, thats not fair. Since you ducked my question earlier, i'll repeat it: DO YOU NOT SEE FLAW IN A SYSTEM THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ELECT A PRESIDENT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL VOTES?It works fine for me. You and 7even are the ones getting your panties in a twist over it, and 7even is from Germany so I have no fuckin clue why he even cares.