In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I probably wont vote tomorrow because Romney is going to win Alabama in a landslide with or without my vote. It seems to me that the deciding the election by popular vote would motivate more people to vote and make sure that every vote really does count for something
Ya. It's bish some crappy state like Ohio gets to decide who is President.
Bush would've lost in 2000.
Short answer is yes.
Steve Spurrier is a God, and Mark Richt worships him
My congressional district is heavily republican, so they will win with or without my vote. I dont think either senator from Alabama is running during this cycle, but the republicans would win anyway. I live outside the city limits, so I dont think I could vote in the mayoral or city council elections even if I wanted too.
Yeah, but Lil Lenny can only handle one box at a time. Saban has ruined the midget's brain....
We would be a lot better off if we repealed the 17th Amendment.
This post was edited by dpfenny 20 months ago
Scored 4 touchdowns...in a single game. Polk High!
For a long time I have been in favor of each congressional district getting their own electoral vote, as opposed to a winner take all for a state, or a pure popular vote.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
Ya, but imagine if thousands (or even better tens-of-thousands) of people feel this way and decide not to vote - chaos!!
You see that sign that says 'Rib Tips'??
It should be popular vote. Whoever gets the most votes from the people wins. It really shouldn't be this difficult.
I fully agree. Apathy is not good for democracy.
It would help if people stopped asking who Ohio is voting for or who New York is voting for and unseats asked who America is voting for.
This post was edited by sf2k4 20 months ago
You can vote Yes on the extension of the Forever Wild amendment.
Also this. I will be.
Doesn't matter the reason. The candidate with the most votes should win, period. Its who the people wants. The people wanted Al Gore in 2000. More people voted for Gore than Bush, yet Bush won?
Yea, makes plenty of sense.
They buy land from willing sellers and turn them into public lands. The goal is to continue to get more public ("wild") spaces in the state. They are not funded by taxpayers.
Dang, looks like the site is overloaded.
Why would anyone vote against that? Great proposal, IMO.
I mean, I'm going to go vote tomorrow, because I'm in a state that is undecided at the moment. I still hate how the system is setup though.
Some people (thankfully very few) see no need to protect the wild. It's nothing but prime real estate to them.
But the reason is defunct! People are generally more educated than when it was created and the votes generally go the way people vote ( can't remember an EC voter who disregarded the way he/she was supposed to vote and went the other way- though I'm only 24).
It really hurts voter turnout in areas that are guaranteed red or blue.
Speaking of Constituions, I wish we could hold a vote to throw out Alabama's and it's one billion amendments and just rewrite the damn thing.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports