November 10, 20169 yr Would a third party candidate have a better shot outside of the EC system? I would think a 3rd party candidate outside of the EC would have a better shot because they wouldn't be viewed as a vote for 1 of the 2 main candidates.
November 10, 20169 yr What if they counted the two senate votes from each state for the candidate that carries the state and count the Congressional district votes for the candidate that wins that district? That wouldn't have changed the 8 votes in Kentucky but in many of the states it would be split. it would be interesting to know how the past 3 or 4 presidential races would have been affected if that had been the electoral system in place.
November 10, 20169 yr I would think a 3rd party candidate outside of the EC would have a better shot because they wouldn't be viewed as a vote for 1 of the 2 main candidates. Seems like a third party guy/ gal might be able to hang in finishing 2nd in several states and land a couple of 1sts and end up winning the popular vote.
November 10, 20169 yr Sure, lets let California, Chicago and New York decide our elections. Couldn't they say: "Great! Another year Florida and Ohio decide our election!"
November 10, 20169 yr Sure, lets let California, Chicago and New York decide our elections. Why should their votes be less important than ours??
November 10, 20169 yr Sure, lets let California, Chicago and New York decide our elections. New York and California definitely skewed the popular vote. Hillary won by 2.5 million votes in California and 1.5 million in New York.
November 10, 20169 yr I hate the argument that California and New York skew the votes. THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK! Their collective voice should have more say than the people of Kentucky because they are dealing with more people. The individual voice of a citizen in California and Kentucky are equal without the EC.
November 10, 20169 yr Author The E.C. is as bad as american cheese We then what do YOU put on your bologna sandwich?? :lol2:
November 10, 20169 yr I hate the argument that California and New York skew the votes. THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK! Their collective voice should have more say than the people of Kentucky because they are dealing with more people. The individual voice of a citizen in California and Kentucky are equal without the EC. I understand the population point. I was only saying that these two states are heavily Democratic and their results are going to be landslide proportions whereas a big electoral state like Florida or Pennsylvania winning margin is around 1 to 2%.
November 10, 20169 yr New York and California definitely skewed the popular vote. Hillary won by 2.5 million votes in California and 1.5 million in New York. 1 vote=1 vote. Doesn't matter where it comes from, they all add up the same.
November 10, 20169 yr I hate the argument that California and New York skew the votes. THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK! Their collective voice should have more say than the people of Kentucky because they are dealing with more people. The individual voice of a citizen in California and Kentucky are equal without the EC. Technically they do have more say than Kentucky, bc they get far more electoral votes.
November 10, 20169 yr Technically they do have more say than Kentucky, bc they get far more electoral votes. I know, but I said w/o the EC 1 vote= 1 vote.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.