Electoral college

[donnie_baseball]

This could be nothing, or it could be an interesting phenomenon. This Republican member of the college states that he's going to vote for Kasich. If they ALL got together and voted Kasich, could we have a President who went out early in the primaries? I think it's more likely that many would vote Trump, but what if 10% of them voted for Kasich, or some other Republican? That would hand Clinton the Presidency, wouldn't it?

I'm not thrilled about Trump, but I don't want Clinton as President. I wrote in Kasich, so I would be happy if that miraculously happened. If somehow Clinton takes office in January -- lookout.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/o...-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0

 

[Seton75]

Clinton still would not have enough electoral votes. This man should be beholden to the voters.

 

[cernjSHU]

In theory, the founding fathers set up the electoral college because they were a bunch of elitists who feared that the common man could make a horrible mistake and elect a person not worthy of offfice. ( Precient, weren't they). It also gave a say to the small states in the small state v big state battle. However, I do believe that the electoral college should follow the will of the people.

The real question. Is do the small states have too many electoral votes? For example, New Jersey has 14 Electoral votes and has a population of 8.9 million. Kentucky has half of the population and has 8 electoral votes? Why do they have more than half of NJ electoral votes when they only have half the population?
Oklahoma has 3.8 million yet has 7 electoral votes half of what NJ has yet has only approximately 40% of the New Jersey's population. I believe that states like New Jersey are underrepresented in the United States Congress. While population growth in the mid west and west have outpaced the growth on the east coast, their electoral gain is disproportionate to the actual population.

 

[SPK145]

In theory, the founding fathers set up the electoral college because they were a bunch of elitists who feared that the common man could make a horrible mistake and elect a person not worthy of offfice. ( Precient, weren't they). It also gave a say to the small states in the small state v big state battle. However, I do believe that the electoral college should follow the will of the people.

The real question. Is do the small states have too many electoral votes? For example, New Jersey has 14 Electoral votes and has a population of 8.9 million. Kentucky has half of the population and has 8 electoral votes? Why do they have more than half of NJ electoral votes when they only have half the population?
Oklahoma has 3.8 million yet has 7 electoral votes half of what NJ has yet has only approximately 40% of the New Jersey's population. I believe that states like New Jersey are underrepresented in the United States Congress. While population growth in the mid west and west have outpaced the growth on the east coast, their electoral gain is disproportionate to the actual population.

Because of the Senate, each state gets 2 votes plus their apportionment of the population.

It's a good system, remember we are The United STATES of America, not the land of California and New York.

 

[cernjSHU]

Because of the Senate, each state gets 2 votes plus their apportionment of the population.

It's a good system, remember we are The United STATES of America, not the land of California and New York.

I may be wrong about this, but I believe it's not strictly apportioned on population which actually skews to help the smaller populated states. I thought that each state gets 1 electoral or 1 seat in the House of Representatives automatically. So from the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, each state gets one which leaves 385 to apportion by the population.

This leads to the over representation of the small states in Congress and the electoral college. Maybe it's a good system, maybe it's not.

 

[shu09]

The electoral map changes every 10 years because Congressional districts change with a new US Census. If you want to blame anything, blame the gerrymandering of districts and the lack of term limits for senators and representatives.

Term limits would solve so many issues in Washington DC.

 

[cernjSHU]

The electoral map changes every 10 years because Congressional districts change with a new US Census. If you want to blame anything, blame the gerrymandering of districts and the lack of term limits for senators and representatives.

Term limits would solve so many issues in Washington DC.

Actually, I don't understand people's fascination with term limits. You think constantly getting new and inexperienced Senators and Representatives would be good for the country? I disagree. It takes time to learn how to govern and experience counts. We do have to power to vote them out. So I completely disagree with term limits.

Now, with regard to gerrymandering, I agree that this is an issue. Most districts in NJ are either safely Republicana or safely Democrat. This is a difficult isssue but I think this is what needs to be corrected. Question is we can all agree on it, just how?

 

[HALL85]

Actually, I don't understand people's fascination with term limits. You think constantly getting new and inexperienced Senators and Representatives would be good for the country? I disagree. It takes time to learn how to govern and experience counts. We do have to power to vote them out. So I completely disagree with term limits.

Now, with regard to gerrymandering, I agree that this is an issue. Most districts in NJ are either safely Republicana or safely Democrat. This is a difficult isssue but I think this is what needs to be corrected. Question is we can all agree on it, just how?

I think it's obvious why term limits are important. Too much power and opportunity for corruption. The power to vote is nonsense in some states...do you really think anyone can challenge Chuck Schumer in NY? Same for red states.

 

[cernjSHU]

I think it's obvious why term limits are important. Too much power and opportunity for corruption. The power to vote is nonsense in some states...do you really think anyone can challenge Chuck Schumer in NY? Same for red states.

I just disagree. There are long standing members of both partys that are good for this country. I may disagree with them politically, but I want McCain in the Senate, Paul Ryan in the House. Why should we lose great minds to lead our country due to term limits. It makes no sense. It took Bernie Sanders all these years to make some people think that some of his thoughts and ideas needed to be looked at.

There are just so many people who would be great to lead our country. I do not want to limit them, their effectiveness and limit the good that they can do to the country. Let's say, you want to limit a US Senator to 2 terms which is 12 years. He is elected when the opposite party comes into power. He is ineffective for 8 years because the opposite party has power. So now, his party finally comes into power and you just give him 4 years to get things done? I fundamentally disagree with term limits.

The bigger issue is gerrymandering.

 

[HALL85]

I just disagree. There are long standing members of both partys that are good for this country. I may disagree with them politically, but I want McCain in the Senate, Paul Ryan in the House. Why should we lose great minds to lead our country due to term limits. It makes no sense. It took Bernie Sanders all these years to make some people think that some of his thoughts and ideas needed to be looked at.

There are just so many people who would be great to lead our country. I do not want to limit them, their effectiveness and limit the good that they can do to the country. Let's say, you want to limit a US Senator to 2 terms which is 12 years. He is elected when the opposite party comes into power. He is ineffective for 8 years because the opposite party has power. So now, his party finally comes into power and you just give him 4 years to get things done? I fundamentally disagree with term limits.

The bigger issue is gerrymandering.

Have to agree to disagree. Bernie had some ideas and was passionate, but I would question why/how someone can make a transition from being a lifetime Senator or House rep to being President. Trump broke a mold this year, but how about building a resume? And who said you're losing them? They can certainly run for or assume other positions in politics to add to their portfolio. With no term limits, the motivation is to make decisions to preserve your role than what is right for your constituents.