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 just had the scariest thought. Eight years of Al Gore in the White House.
That is who the people wanted. He got more votes than Bush.
People vote against it by the govt can't pay for it without raiding our states trust fund that is supposed to be there for more important issues. Before the last vote we made millions off the trust now it is being raided and will be out of cash eventually. damn shame people are so near sighted.
People that want the end of the electoral college and to start going by popular vote are the same idiots that actually have no idea what a republic is.
The electoral college is in place for a very important reason....without it, the smaller states would effectively see their representation in the national elections approach zero.
Issues that concern Alaska, Wyoming, etc. would never be important to presidential candidates.....issues that concern Los Angeles, new york, etc. would be the only thing that mattered.
There would be no representation for supposed members of the Union.
The electoral college gives these smaller population states a greater say (based on per capita) in the election due to the fact that every state starts with a minimum of 3 votes.....The voting power of a citizen of Alaska is nearly 3 times the voting power of a citizen of California despite the fact California has nearly 20 times more electoral votes.
This post was edited by coolstorybro 20 months ago
10 Major Poll National Titles (CFB record)
35 Bowl Wins (CFB record)
72 Wins over last 6 years (CFB record)
The money being used to potentially fund this program along with various others ( as of the last vote) was to raid the state trust fund which held about a billion from bonus payments for off shore oil leases.
No one knew how to best spend the money so they put it in trust for our future and planned to use the interest to pay off various debts (which we did). The plan was to use 90% of the interest to provide Alabama with much needed sustainable revenue and rainy day funds for education and something else.
There was a vote about a month ago in which Alabamans voted to open this trust up to pay for prisons and other things. At about 1/3 of the trusts value. The vote tomorrow is to take another 10% out of the trust for forever wild which is a nice program however not a Program in which a state like Alabama with many needs should spend its limited resources.
What will end up happening is that this billion dollar fund will be wasted programs that are not sustainable and we will look back In 30 years and realize we wasted a billion dollars. I have more info if you are still curious.
This post was edited by ogattny 20 months ago
Electoral college was put in place so presidential candidates have to campaign in almost all the states. Popular vote they would more or less just campaign along the coasts. Out founding fathers were genius.
Stop leeching off of our big city tits IMO. Voter welfare
And it would be great if all states did that. IMO it would solve the problems with both the popular vote and the electoral college. Small states would still be important, and people who live in states that lean heavy one way or the other, their votes would matter. For instance BLF's vote for Obama today might actually mean something in Alabama.
No they don't. They basically have to campaign in Ohio.
It is always nice to find some common ground with someone on the other end of the political spectrum. I did 5 submarine patrols when I was active duty and now am in Afghanistan as a member of the guard. I get infuriated with those who say it is too hard to vote or don't bother for X reason.
As for the OP, one giant HELL NO. People forget that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy (not a pure one). If it were not for the EC, the campaigns and thus the presidents wouldn't give 2 rat's rears about small states and rural areas. They would focus on population centers in order to max their chances of topping the popular vote. While we are at it, we should ammend the constitution to repeal the 17th amendment (the direct election of Senators). Senators were originally elected by their respective state legislature. We need to strengthen the rights of states and push most gov't programs down to the local level. What is good for a rancher in Montana is not likely the best idea for a an architect in NYC.
Have you paid attention to elections in recent years? Under the electoral college model, the candidates spend all their time and money in 7 or 8 states because the rest of the states are guaranteed to vote a certain way. Almost all of the southern states (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, etc.) are guaranteed to vote republican. Almost all the states in the northeast (New York, New Jersey, Mass, etc) are guaranteed to vote democratic
Yes because candidates spend so much of their time campaigning in Alaska and Wyoming under the electoral college model. Geez! With the popular vote model, candidates would ignore certain states at their own peril. Under the electoral college model, candidates know they can ignore 90 percent of the states and not pay a price for it
This post was edited by aubie25 20 months ago
I understand that, but I don't want the candidates to pander to the cities only (population centers). That is just as bad if not worse. I don't have the full-proof answer, but much like instant replay, the electoral college stands (nowhere near the amount of support needed for an amendment to get rid of it).
The best solution is to get viable 3rd party candidates, but in order to do that people must start voting them in at the local level. I would love it if I could choose b/n 5 guys/gals in the election and they have a run-off if nobody gets the magical 217 in the EC. WIth viable 3rd/4th parties, candidates would be forced to campaign in every state (granted the lib candidates would focus on CA and the conservatives would focus on TX...), but they would still get focus across the board. What if 2 more liberal candidates were the top two. Imagine their run-off debates/ads in TX, AL,... This would also force the politiicians to work together to get things done as no one party would likely be able to do anything on their own. If things were like this (gridlock) b/f we had 1000s of laws/regs and over 70K pages in the IRS tax code, then I'd love gridlock (Feds shouldn't do much anyway - see Art 1 Sect 8).
no one said anything about campaigning.
with a popular vote....candidates wouldn't even worry about any issue that presses small population states. they wouldn't even care because there is relatively no benefit to winning that faction of voters.
the candidates would solely pander to issues that affect large metropolitan cities.
Also, another main reason we do not use a popular vote is because we are not a democracy....we are a republic.
^^^^^^^^^^^Most of this jibberish makes no sense. Under the electoral college, politicians have no reason to care about certain states because they have no chance of winning those states anyway. The bottom line is truly every vote would mean something under a popular vote scenario. Every vote does not mean something in an electoral college model
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by aubie25 20 months ago
Because it is making a choice to spend money on something when money is low. I am voting for it though because I think it will save in the long run. Spending and preserving now is a lot cheaper than paying to restore later. Ask Louisiana about that.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports