21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
If I wanted to be inflammatory, you'd know. Your skin would flap outward in a way that reminds you of those old Looney Tunes cartoons when a gun explodes because it's been corked.
Also, each vote isn't worth the same because of a guy named Gerry Manders who decided states should vote, not people, so people vote for a state and then the winning party takes all the votes together, therefore erasing those of the losing party.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm honestly not sure if you're joking here, but in case you're not:
The term "gerrymandering" refers to the nasty habit of structuring electoral districts to ensure a certain result. This, historically, ranges from disenfranchising or minimizing the impact of non-white voters to making sure one party is all but guaranteed an electoral victory. The term (and practice) is not confined to, nor does it originate in the United States.
What I think you're referring to isn't gerrymandering but the Electoral College. Essentially, voters in American Presidential elections don't vote directly for a candidate. Each state has a set number of "electors" (equal to their total representatives in Congress), and the popular vote in each state determines which party's slate of electors gets to vote. It's winner take all, with one or two exceptions, so if 1% to 49% of the popular vote in a state goes for Candidate A, Candidate B gets all of that state's electoral votes. The Electoral College vote almost always reflects the nation-wide popular vote, with two notable exceptions, the most recent being the 2000 election.
I should read something for school tonight, but I don't wanna. I have 8 days to get my paper done, I think I am going to look at some journals for some ideas.
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Also, each vote isn't worth the same because of a guy named Gerry Manders who decided states should vote, not people, so people vote for a state and then the winning party takes all the votes together, therefore erasing those of the losing party.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm honestly not sure if you're joking here, but in case you're not:
The term "gerrymandering" refers to the nasty habit of structuring electoral districts to ensure a certain result. This, historically, ranges from disenfranchising or minimizing the impact of non-white voters to making sure one party is all but guaranteed an electoral victory. The term (and practice) is not confined to, nor does it originate in the United States.
What I think you're referring to isn't gerrymandering but the Electoral College. Essentially, voters in American Presidential elections don't vote directly for a candidate. Each state has a set number of "electors" (equal to their total representatives in Congress), and the popular vote in each state determines which party's slate of electors gets to vote. It's winner take all, with one or two exceptions, so if 1% to 49% of the popular vote in a state goes for Candidate A, Candidate B gets all of that state's electoral votes. The Electoral College vote almost always reflects the nation-wide popular vote, with two notable exceptions, the most recent being the 2000 election.
Thanks a lot for the info, but you were right in assuming this was a joke. I do, however, find the electoral college to be ridiculous and harmful. I believe I discussed it with fine gents in a [chat] thread several weeks ago.
In some ways I agree with the idea of the electoral college. Mostly because the "mob" isn't to be trusted, as per the last midterm shows. But its implementation right now is really just to show the approval of the mob and gives certain states more power than other states in the election. So basically we have hit the point where I think the country has outgrown it and we should abolish it. Though this would take a constitutional amendment and that would take many a year to go through. So our best bet is to try and minimize the damage it causes. Which means strict state laws on elections and proper oversight. Plus the removal of easily tampered with electric voter machines and making sure all elections have a paper record.
I think a state-by-state shift to proportional Electoral College representation would work as a short-term solution since a Constitutional amendment would be difficult to ratify, but then again there are a lot of states that are purple in reality but solid-red or solid-blue in the EC that won't want to make that change.
I think a state-by-state shift to proportional Electoral College representation would work as a short-term solution since a Constitutional amendment would be difficult to ratify, but then again there are a lot of states that are purple in reality but solid-red or solid-blue in the EC that won't want to make that change.
I like the idea. But this would require a lot of state constitutions to change. Which some of those would take a long period of time, others a single vote. I really do think, the solid vote though hurts some states since candidates do not really put time or money there do to either the small amount of EC votes and the perception of it being a sure thing for their opponent. Which hurts the general awareness of issues overall.
I think a state-by-state shift to proportional Electoral College representation would work as a short-term solution since a Constitutional amendment would be difficult to ratify, but then again there are a lot of states that are purple in reality but solid-red or solid-blue in the EC that won't want to make that change.
I like the idea. But this would require a lot of state constitutions to change. Which some of those would take a long period of time, others a single vote. I really do think, the solid vote though hurts some states since candidates do not really put time or money there do to either the small amount of EC votes and the perception of it being a sure thing for their opponent. Which hurts the general awareness of issues overall.
Proportional doesn't really fix that issue much. I mean Candidates aren't gonna ever spend much time in Vermont, simply because Vermont will never have enough population to really matter.
I think a state-by-state shift to proportional Electoral College representation would work as a short-term solution since a Constitutional amendment would be difficult to ratify, but then again there are a lot of states that are purple in reality but solid-red or solid-blue in the EC that won't want to make that change.
I like the idea. But this would require a lot of state constitutions to change. Which some of those would take a long period of time, others a single vote. I really do think, the solid vote though hurts some states since candidates do not really put time or money there do to either the small amount of EC votes and the perception of it being a sure thing for their opponent. Which hurts the general awareness of issues overall.
Proportional doesn't really fix that issue much. I mean Candidates aren't gonna ever spend much time in Vermont, simply because Vermont will never have enough population to really matter.
Well when you think of it that way neither will an abolished electoral college. Why spend time in Wyoming or Vermont when you can spend that time in Cali which you can win more votes by huge margins.
Oh the frustrations of elected representation.
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
I think Nebraska and Maine have a pretty solid deal in the electoral college in the absence of abolishing it. Each congressional district sends an elector based on results in that district, and then the overall winner of the state's popular vote would get the two extra.
Fun fact, in 2008, there were a few polls where Obama could have won two out three congressional districts in Nebraska and still lose the state at-large votes. That's how Republican the third district is.
I think a state-by-state shift to proportional Electoral College representation would work as a short-term solution since a Constitutional amendment would be difficult to ratify, but then again there are a lot of states that are purple in reality but solid-red or solid-blue in the EC that won't want to make that change.
I like the idea. But this would require a lot of state constitutions to change. Which some of those would take a long period of time, others a single vote. I really do think, the solid vote though hurts some states since candidates do not really put time or money there do to either the small amount of EC votes and the perception of it being a sure thing for their opponent. Which hurts the general awareness of issues overall.
Proportional doesn't really fix that issue much. I mean Candidates aren't gonna ever spend much time in Vermont, simply because Vermont will never have enough population to really matter.
Well when you think of it that way neither will an abolished electoral college. Why spend time in Wyoming or Vermont when you can spend that time in Cali which you can win more votes by huge margins.
Oh the frustrations of elected representation.
The EC works mostly because other options aren't enough better to matter.
Posts
We are assuming good faith.
What? Is that your idea of a bad joke? It seriously wounds me for you to say that.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
HEEL
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
aww yeah
get some kilograms and decametres all up in
Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm honestly not sure if you're joking here, but in case you're not:
The term "gerrymandering" refers to the nasty habit of structuring electoral districts to ensure a certain result. This, historically, ranges from disenfranchising or minimizing the impact of non-white voters to making sure one party is all but guaranteed an electoral victory. The term (and practice) is not confined to, nor does it originate in the United States.
What I think you're referring to isn't gerrymandering but the Electoral College. Essentially, voters in American Presidential elections don't vote directly for a candidate. Each state has a set number of "electors" (equal to their total representatives in Congress), and the popular vote in each state determines which party's slate of electors gets to vote. It's winner take all, with one or two exceptions, so if 1% to 49% of the popular vote in a state goes for Candidate A, Candidate B gets all of that state's electoral votes. The Electoral College vote almost always reflects the nation-wide popular vote, with two notable exceptions, the most recent being the 2000 election.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Because he's watching them first?
Because Big Brother tells them to watch.
Thanks a lot for the info, but you were right in assuming this was a joke. I do, however, find the electoral college to be ridiculous and harmful. I believe I discussed it with fine gents in a [chat] thread several weeks ago.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Good lord no.
What if they watch it more than once and enjoy it?
NNID: Hakkekage
No one is perfect. Sometimes you must accept a horrible flaw in taste for the rest of the package.
Nobody is perfect.
You work that ass Hakks!
Nice.
So when I break up with her I say it's me not her, got it.
I like the idea. But this would require a lot of state constitutions to change. Which some of those would take a long period of time, others a single vote. I really do think, the solid vote though hurts some states since candidates do not really put time or money there do to either the small amount of EC votes and the perception of it being a sure thing for their opponent. Which hurts the general awareness of issues overall.
Man, I like that show, but it could use some better writers. It is fluff, but really high quality fluff.
it is p good
Proportional doesn't really fix that issue much. I mean Candidates aren't gonna ever spend much time in Vermont, simply because Vermont will never have enough population to really matter.
Do you swear?
NNID: Hakkekage
often, and with gusto
I am trying to decide if I should watch the second one tonight too
that would keep me up real late
Had you never watched it before?
Well when you think of it that way neither will an abolished electoral college. Why spend time in Wyoming or Vermont when you can spend that time in Cali which you can win more votes by huge margins.
Oh the frustrations of elected representation.
Fun fact, in 2008, there were a few polls where Obama could have won two out three congressional districts in Nebraska and still lose the state at-large votes. That's how Republican the third district is.
The EC works mostly because other options aren't enough better to matter.