And so the unthinkable is really going to happen. While the race isn't over yet are there already polls available how people will vote when it's between the two?
Well then, at least our choices have been narrowed down to either the wicked witch of the east or the Wizard of OZ!
I was the first one here to make this claim in an earlier thread with the same title as this one. I told you all so. Just like awhile back I said the Supreme Court would make gay marriage legal in all 50 states of the United States. I remember people saying, "Nah. The individual states will have their say on whether or not to legalize gay marriage and some states will not legalize it." However, all 50 states, courtesy of the Supreme Court, like I predicted, now have to allow gay marriage.
Not yet that I am aware of. Trump has not sewn it up yet as he's at 673 delegates, and needs 1,237. Kasich took Ohio. He's still well behind, but from what I hear, would like to get to a brokered convention.
Reminds me of the bit at the end of Ghostbusters where Gozer tells the ghostbusters to choose the form of the destroyer.
Since the Electoral College decides who the President will be, my non vote will be pretty insignificant. I can't see myself voting for either of these clowns. Well, clown and a traitor.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the electoral college system, either. I think we should just take the total votes across the United States and see how many votes each candidate receives. The one with the most votes wins. I don't particularly like the idea of very liberal Seattle deciding that the entire State of Washington, where I live in Spokane, will give Hillary Clinton so many "electoral votes" from the state. Every major election, the clowns in Seattle decide how things get run in Washington State and it's getting really old.
Then let's just forget elections completely and let New York, Chicago, California, Texas, and FLorida get together a pick a president. The Electoral College system is in place to insure that the smaller states have important impact on the election of a president. If you don't like Seattle controlling all of the electoral votes for Washington, then get the legislature to go to proportionate voting or congressional district voting like Maine does.
My biggest complaint this time around is that the system needs an overhaul. I believe, as naive as it sounds, that Aaron or RabbiKnife should have as much of a chance as becoming president as all these millionaires. I know there are independents on the ballot on election day, but honestly the ones that get the popular vote, and the Electoral College vote, are the nominees for the 2 parties. It shouldn't just be those 2 who have all the support and realistic chance. We're being asked to choose between 2 individuals because that's the best they have to offer. And frankly the choices don't impress me much. OK rant over.
Why would the places you mentioned be all that is needed to elect a President? They the only places in the United States with a human population that can vote? They also the only places that would all pick the same candidate as each other? The United States has almost 319 million people living in it. Let's say about 10 million are illegals. 309 Million are citizens. Many citizens are jaded by politics and don't vote. Let's drop it to half, 154 million or so. Those people, no matter how big or small the place they live, all turn out to vote. Every persons' votes are counted up. The candidate with the most of those votes wins. Not sure what the issue with that would be. And if it somehow comes down to dead even, come up with a means, that everybody can agree to, in order to break the tie.
If you eliminate the Electoral College, which gives some power to lesser inhabited states, and you pick a purely democratic majority of all voters, then you tell the large urban centers that they are the only things that matter in this country. We are not a directly elected democracy. We are a representatively elected republic for just that very reason.
The large urban centers are not the only places with people that vote. The large urban areas are also actually a minority. There are WAY more smaller and middle sized towns than there are big ones. Enough small places' votes added up could equal, or even surpass, one urban area's votes. I personally don't think your argument in favor of electoral college voting holds water. It SOUNDS good to say, "we don't want big towns and states deciding elections." However, letting every individual vote count on its own towards a total voting number prevents that exact scenario. I think you also have the mistaken belief that everybody in any given large state will all vote for the same person. I don't believe that's true. Let's say every largely populated area's populations across the U.S. were added up. Let's say that's 50 million citizens. That's quite honestly higher than reality. But, let's run with it. Let's also say every single person in those areas all voted for the SAME candidate. Also not reality. Anyway, the United States population is almost 309 million people. Only half, or less, citizens actually vote anymore. That's 154 million voters. If 50 million live in large cities and states, that leaves 104 million voters that DON'T live in urban areas! That being the case, how could "large urban areas" decide elections if we went to a directly elected democracy?
First, this is the United STATES of America, not "America". We do not have democratic voting for president by popular vote because each state has a voice in the election, through the Electoral College. The large urban centers vastly outweigh rural America in terms of population. You should do some research into the actual demographics and you would immediately see how necessary the Electoral College is.
The ONLY way your argument in favor of electoral college voting could remotely be sound is if, in EVERY single large city, EVERY single voter picked the same candidate. Do you believe that would be, in fact, what would happen? Also, what population number defines a large urban area? Do you also know the total population of large urban areas in the U.S., once you've defined urban areas, versus the total population of more rural areas so that we could see the supposed disparity in numbers? I have not put forth any hard data, but neither have you.
Generally speaking, urban centres are much more liberal-leaning whereas the rural areas tend to be much more conservative. This is particularly true here in Canada where recent elections show clear Liberal Party/NDP voting in the cities and broad Conservative vote in the rural parts.