Romney to cook Big Bird.............
Romney to cook Big Bird............. |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Romney to cook Big Bird.............
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Just vote.......... | |
ID: 1301562 ·  | |
|
Great song...... | |
| ID: 1301563 · | |
Great song...... | |
| ID: 1301577 · | |
|
Your out of line. | |
| ID: 1301578 · | |
Your out of line. Why? For scalding a politician and calling him our for his lies? Where, my friend, am I out of line. Be specific. ____________ ****** "Ask not, what your kitty can do for you. Ask what you can do for your kitty." As it is kitten, so shall it be done.  | |
| ID: 1301583 · | |
In the presidential election each state is worth a number of votes, based on its population, and if the race is close it could come down to a single state. The winner is the candidate who secures 270 votes or more. The bar below shows the votes that are considered safe for each candidate and, in the middle, the battleground states that could be won by either side. Explore what might happen in the election and compare your prediction with those of the experts. Poll prediction Looking at the map it seems that going upon population, Obama will get the West Coast and the East Coast votes, to win, whilst Romney will get middle America. But going upon number of states and land area, Romney should win. So a President can win by people numbers, but only represent 25% of the Country? Isn't it time this Electoral College was looked into? Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important, distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in the Congress seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote. We in the UK are also questioning the way that voting is done when we had the Alternative Vote referendum recently. I don't think that either country gets the politicians that truly represent the wishes of the people with their present systems. | |
| ID: 1301666 · | |
 Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10335 Credit: 5,112,567 RAC: 6,405  | |
Poll prediction By land mass you are correct. But not by population. Consider that the state of Nevada has less residents in total than the population living within the city limits of the City of Los Angeles California. Of that the City of Los Angeles has five times the number of people as the State of Alaska. There are places in the US where you can be the only person within 100 miles. This isn't Europe. There is a bit of inequity, which was intentionally put into the Electoral College to bias it towards small population states. This because each state is given two votes simply by existing, the rest are by population. This was done so that small states can not be ignored. Perhaps Chris is right and we should give each state 3 Senators for existing and hence 3 votes for existing in the Electoral Collage. ____________   | |
| ID: 1301697 · | |
Perhaps Chris is right and we should give each state 3 Senators for existing and hence 3 votes for existing in the Electoral Collage. It does seem to me that the current representation is disproportionate. | |
| ID: 1301700 · | |
|
538, (435 Representatives and 100 Senators) | |
| ID: 1301719 · | |
|
Terror Australis Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1420 Credit: 182,393,046 RAC: 163,406  | |
.....If we followed this line of the constitution, we'd mathematically approach a pure democracy. Hmmmm. A strange statement from a citizen of a country that styles itself "The Home of Democracy". Is an "impure" democracy still a democracy ? Has there ever been a "pure" democracy ? Even Ancient Greece had limitations on suffrage. Please name a "pure democracy" that has failed and how long did it last ? It sounds to me like you are advocating a system where only "The Gentry" can vote (because they know best) and the Plebian rabble are left to get on with the job of making money for The Gentry unconcerned by politics. According to Wikipedia, one of the reasons the 17th amendment was passed was to negate "the risk of corruption". They might as well repeal it, on those grounds, it has failed completely T.A. | |
| ID: 1301726 · | |
|
You state the constitution often enough to realize the high bar set in order to pass an amendment. Were conservatives that weak in the 1910's? I don't think that was the case, they too saw the need for this change.
| |
| ID: 1301733 · | |
|
Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here.
| |
| ID: 1301734 · | |
Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here. +1 | |
| ID: 1301736 · | |
|
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10335 Credit: 5,112,567 RAC: 6,405 | |
|
If we want to get real radical, lets have a third house. Its job will be to repeal existing laws. The representation in it will be based on the amount of land area in the state. Just to be a bit more fair, not federally controlled land area, so national parks, forests etc., don't count. Then we give an equal number to the electoral college. How radical is that? | |
| ID: 1301766 · | |
If we want to get real radical, lets have a third house. Its job will be to repeal existing laws. The representation in it will be based on the amount of land area in the state. Just to be a bit more fair, not federally controlled land area, so national parks, forests etc., don't count. Then we give an equal number to the electoral college. How radical is that? OMG......we NEED a third choice. You just now saw that???????????? How freaking visionary. Sorry, did not really mean to be an arse. But, come on.............Yes, I agree with you on this one. Meows,. ____________ ****** "Ask not, what your kitty can do for you. Ask what you can do for your kitty." As it is kitten, so shall it be done. | |
| ID: 1301780 · | |
|
Ex Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,162,492 RAC: 867 | |
Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg. One could make that exact same argument about electing a Republican back into office. It's so funny how many people blame Obama for the economy, apparently forgetting the guy that got us into the mess and WHEN. ____________ -Dave #2 | |
| ID: 1302074 · | |
|
Ex Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,162,492 RAC: 867 | |
Sounds like you are endorsing the Electoral College here. +2 @Gary's; shouldn't it be based on population, rather than physical size of the state? I mean really... Come on. You'd be giving greater power to states with much smaller populations. Which is an existing issue, with the senate IMHO. Then again some of us prefer thinking of the US as one country, and others want it to be 50 countries. ____________ -Dave #2 | |
| ID: 1302075 · | |
Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg. You are completely ignoring the balance of power in DC. | |
| ID: 1302080 · | |
|
Ex Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,162,492 RAC: 867 | |
Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg. Which has also been slightly to the right for several years now as far as I know.. ____________ -Dave #2 | |
| ID: 1302084 · | |
Re-electing Obama for a second term is like the Titanic backing up and having another go at the iceberg. Well look and find out. Let me make it easy on you. Pres From To # H Dem H Rep S Dem S Rep FDR 1939 1941 76 257 177 73 23 DEM filibuster proof FDR 1941 1943 77 273 162 68 28 DEM filibuster proof FDR 1943 1945 78 226 209 59 37 DEM majority H Truman 1945 1947 79 244 191 58 38 DEM majority H Truman 1947 1949 80 185 248 45 51 REP majority H Truman 1949 1951 81 263 171 53 43 DEM majority H Truman 1951 1953 82 235 199 48 48 Split D Eisenhower 1953 1955 83 213 221 47 48 Split D Eisenhower 1955 1957 84 232 203 48 47 DEM majority D Eisenhower 1957 1959 85 234 201 49 47 DEM majority D Eisenhower 1959 1961 86 283 153 65 35 DEM filibuster proof J Kennedy 1961 1963 87 263 174 63 37 DEM filibuster prooffilibuster proof J Kennedy 1963 1965 88 258 177 66 34 DEM filibuster proof L Johnson 1965 1967 89 295 140 68 32 DEM filibuster proof L Johnson 1967 1969 90 247 187 64 36 DEM filibuster proof R Nixon 1969 1971 91 243 192 57 43 DEM majority R Nixon 1971 1973 92 255 180 55 45 DEM majority R Nixon 1973 1975 93 240 192 57 42 DEM majority G Ford 1975 1977 94 291 144 60 40 DEM filibuster proof J Carter 1977 1979 95 292 143 61 39 DEM filibuster proof J Carter 1979 1981 96 277 158 58 42 DEM majority R Reagan 1981 1983 97 244 191 46 53 Split R Reagan 1983 1985 98 272 163 45 55 Split R Reagan 1985 1987 99 253 182 47 53 Split R Reagan 1987 1989 100 258 177 55 45 DEM majority Bush 41 1989 1991 101 261 174 55 45 DEM majority Bush 41 1991 1993 102 270 164 55 45 DEM majority B Clinton 1993 1995 103 258 164 57 43 DEM majority B Clinton 1995 1997 104 198 234 47 53 REP majority B Clinton 1997 1999 105 206 228 45 55 REP majority B Clinton 1999 2001 106 212 223 45 55 REP majority Bush 43 2001 2003 107 211 223 51 49 Split Bush 43 2003 2005 108 211 227 49 51 REP majority Bush 43 2005 2007 109 207 231 45 55 REP majority Bush 43 2007 2009 110 239 200 51 49 DEM majority B Obama 2009 2011 111 261 178 59 41 DEM filibuster proof for 10 months B Obama 2011 2013 112 193 242 53 47 Split | |
| ID: 1302092 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Romney to cook Big Bird.............
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
