"A rational individual should abstain from voting."

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

Can the electors change their minds?
In some cases, yes. Only about half the states legally require their electors to vote for their assigned candidate; the others are, ostensibly, free to change their votes. In addition, the penalties for breaking the rules are so minimal as to be virtually meaningless. However, only about five electors — who are described as "faithless" — have ever done that, though most of those have occurred in the last 30 years.
Are there any exceptions?
Yes. Nebraska and Maine use a proportional vote system. Two of each state's electors are chosen by the statewide vote, while the remaining members are determined by the popular vote within each congressional district.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,55439,00.html#ixzz23q1iEz29

again, sorry for the cnp, but if it answers a question, i'm all for it..

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,55439,00.html

londonfog · Aug 17, 2012

racerboy71 said:
Can the electors change their minds?
In some cases, yes. Only about half the states legally require their electors to vote for their assigned candidate; the others are, ostensibly, free to change their votes. In addition, the penalties for breaking the rules are so minimal as to be virtually meaningless. However, only about five electors — who are described as "faithless" — have ever done that, though most of those have occurred in the last 30 years.
Are there any exceptions?
Yes. Nebraska and Maine use a proportional vote system. Two of each state's electors are chosen by the statewide vote, while the remaining members are determined by the popular vote within each congressional district.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,55439,00.html#ixzz23q1iEz29

again, sorry for the cnp, but if it answers a question, i'm all for it..

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,55439,00.html

again none has changed the outcome of an election

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

londonfog said:
Well when it happen let me know.. I will be ready to fight with you...until then and vote

please explain how it's right when a president loses the popular vote, you know, what you and i do in november, but can still win the presidency?? i'm thinking 2000 and a guy named gwb...

londonfog · Aug 17, 2012

racerboy71 said:
please explain how it's right when a president loses the popular vote, you know, what you and i do in november, but can still win the presidency?? i'm thinking 2000 and a guy named gwb...

I blame the make up of the Supreme Court and the lack of balls from Gore. Gore consented to that BS.

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

londonfog said:
I blame the make up of the Supreme Court and the lack of balls from Gore. Gore consented to that BS.

ok, but how about the other three instances where a president has lost the popular vote and still managed to go on to become president??

unlike saying that an electoral can vote for whomever he wants, i have actual proof that a president has lost the popular and still gone on to become president..

londonfog · Aug 17, 2012

Electoral votes are use so every state has a chance to make a difference and value. If it was based solely on the popular vote then we all would be owned by New York and Cali. Your less-populated States would be shit out of luck. Hell farmers have a right to have a say...not just big city dwellers

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

londonfog said:
Electoral votes are use so every state has a chance to make a difference and value. If it was based solely on the popular vote then we all would be owned by New York and Cali. Your less-populated States would be shit out of luck. Hell farmers have a right to have a say...not just big city dwellers

even with the electoral vote, states like new york and cali and texas play a larger part in elections than say nebreska or washington dc, as they still get more ec votes then smaller less populated states..
your point doesn't make much sense to me..

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

and why should the state matter?? if we just counted up every individual vote, no matter where it came from, and the person who had the most votes won, then i could really get behind voting.. but it simply doesn't work that way..

londonfog · Aug 17, 2012

racerboy71 said:
even with the electoral vote, states like new york and cali and texas play a larger part in elections than say nebreska or washington dc, as they still get more ec votes then smaller less populated states..
your point doesn't make much sense to me..

heres a quick break down of why that is so wrong ^^^^^^

- Wyoming gets 3 votes in the Electoral College (2 Senators plus one Rep)
- Wyoming's population is 501,000
- So Wyoming get one Electoral vote per 167,000 people. (501,000 / 3).
- California has 55 Electoral votes (2 Senators plus 53 Reps)
- California's population is 35.5 million.
- So California gets one Electoral vote per 645,000 people. (35.5 million / 55).
- Comparing the Electoral votes per person, Wyoming's people get almost 4 times as much representation as do Californians in the Electoral College

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

londonfog said:
heres a quick break down of why that is so wrong ^^^^^^

- Wyoming gets 3 votes in the Electoral College (2 Senators plus one Rep)
- Wyoming's population is 501,000
- So Wyoming get one Electoral vote per 167,000 people. (501,000 / 3).
- California has 55 Electoral votes (2 Senators plus 53 Reps)
- California's population is 35.5 million.
- So California gets one Electoral vote per 645,000 people. (35.5 million / 55).
- Comparing the Electoral votes per person, Wyoming's people get almost 4 times as much representation as do Californians in the Electoral College

wrong how, for the simple fact of how many people live in cali rather than wyoming, cali get's more ec votes, therefore cali is a bigger player in the elections than wyoming is..
why do politicians spend way more time campaigning in states like cali, tex, ny rather then wyoming and any other number of smally populated states in the midwest??

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

londonfog said:
heres a quick break down of why that is so wrong ^^^^^^

- Wyoming gets 3 votes in the Electoral College (2 Senators plus one Rep)
- Wyoming's population is 501,000
- So Wyoming get one Electoral vote per 167,000 people. (501,000 / 3).
- California has 55 Electoral votes (2 Senators plus 53 Reps)
- California's population is 35.5 million.
- So California gets one Electoral vote per 645,000 people. (35.5 million / 55).
- Comparing the Electoral votes per person, Wyoming's people get almost 4 times as much representation as do Californians in the Electoral College

so are you saying that wyoming with it's whopping 5 ec votes is a bigger player than say cali with 55?? kind of lost me again...

londonfog · Aug 17, 2012

racerboy71 said:
wrong how, for the simple fact of how many people live in cali rather than wyoming, cali get's more ec votes, therefore cali is a bigger player in the elections than wyoming is..
why do politicians spend way more time campaigning in states like cali, tex, ny rather then wyoming and any other number of smally populated states in the midwest??

if not for the electoral votes they wouldn't even come to some States...lol

londonfog · Aug 17, 2012

racerboy71 said:
so are you saying that wyoming with it's whopping 5 ec votes is a bigger player than say cali with 55?? kind of lost me again...

yeah I don't think you get it..so carry on

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

and you've yet to mention anything about the other three presidents whom have lost the popular vote and went on to win the presidency...

i'm all ears, i'd love to think that my vote counts, but nothing anyone has said has proven that it indeed does..

and why not just tally up all of the total votes per voter and pick a winner that way, disregard state lines, after all we are the republic of the united states... why give bigger more populated states more power over a smaller state?/
just count each individual vote as one for whomever they voted for, get rid of the ev all together??

londonfog · Aug 17, 2012

racerboy71 said:
and you've yet to mention anything about the other three presidents whom have lost the popular vote and went on to win the presidency...

i'm all ears, i'd love to think that my vote counts, but nothing anyone has said has proven that it indeed does..

and why not just tally up all of the total votes per voter and pick a winner that way, disregard state lines, after all we are the republic of the united states... why give bigger more populated states more power over a smaller state?/
just count each individual vote as one for whomever they voted for, get rid of the ev all together??

My argument was never for the popular vote it was for the Electoral College..were you not paying attention ??? Our system is not built on the popular system. Its built on every state being represented in our Union...

ginwilly · Aug 17, 2012

londonfog said:
heres a quick break down of why that is so wrong ^^^^^^

- Wyoming gets 3 votes in the Electoral College (2 Senators plus one Rep)
- Wyoming's population is 501,000
- So Wyoming get one Electoral vote per 167,000 people. (501,000 / 3).
- California has 55 Electoral votes (2 Senators plus 53 Reps)
- California's population is 35.5 million.
- So California gets one Electoral vote per 645,000 people. (35.5 million / 55).
- Comparing the Electoral votes per person, Wyoming's people get almost 4 times as much representation as do Californians in the Electoral College

I had never seen this broken down this way. I'm not sure what it means right off the bat, but thanks for showing us this. Gives me something to think about.

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

londonfog said:
My argument was never for the popular vote it was for the Electoral College..were you not paying attention ??? Our system is not built on the popular system. Its built on every state being represented in our Union...

and my point was that our vote don't mean shit, weren't you paying attention??

no one, including you, has shown me different...

and the electoral college is exactly the problem imo.. get rid of it, count only popular votes, then get back to me about my vote counting..

racerboy71 · Aug 17, 2012

and you still keep avoiding the question about the other three non bush presidents who have lost the popular vote and still went on to become president...

if our vote really counted, there would have been 4 different presidents then history tells us that there was...

cannabineer · Aug 17, 2012

racerboy71 said:
and my point was that our vote don't mean shit, weren't you paying attention??

no one, including you, has shown me different...

and the electoral college is exactly the problem imo.. get rid of it, count only popular votes, then get back to me about my vote counting..

Sometimes individual votes matter greatly, as in the 2000 election.
The electoral system was put in place to limit systematic voter misrepresentation. Going to a pure popular vote causes as many problems as it solves. Jmo. cn

ginwilly · Aug 17, 2012

Racerboy, I'm just spouting out of boredom so it's quite possible it's my ass that's talking here but were set up as a Republic and not as a Democracy for a reason. They had the foresight to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Granted, this probably has nothing to do presidential elections but I always liked that train of thought. I find myself in the minority on more than a few issues so Tyranny of the Majority sounds ominous to me.

Being a tree hugging fiscal conservative makes it hard to find clubs to join.

"A rational individual should abstain from voting."

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

bud bootlegger

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member