If we got rid of the electoral vote system....

[Franzl]

Depends from what perspective. It'd make election night less interesting for people like us that want to project the states, but it would definitely make for a better and more meaningful election all together.

[Franzl]

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

[Franzl]

Can anybody explain why exactly it would be a bad thing if candidates spend time in urban areas?

I remember when Obama completely ignored Pueblo, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and many other cities because of the electoral college.

Why should people in Albuquerque get more attention than those in New York? Does that make any sense?

[Franzl]

What's your point, Vepres?

[Franzl]

as evidenced by the amount of federal dollars that large states on average get back?

[Franzl]

OK, that argument is fair enough....but do you honestly think Colorado should get so much more attention than....say.....Alabama simply because Colorado is close enough that both candidates believe they have a chance of winning?

What's so terrible about having each vote count equally....especially in a single winner election where the winner is supposed to have a mandate from a majority of the country? Why should a person in New York care about voting if he knows he has no way of helping his candidate further?

[Franzl]

Whether or not you like a weak executive branch.....the executive branch isn't getting weaker any time soon....so wouldn't it be preferable that citizens have an equal chance to elect that executive?

Your only arguments are the "federal structure" and keeping the executive branch weak. The reasons that people vote how they do should be completely irrelevant in determining how much weight to give those votes. Who are you to tell New Yorkers that their opinion is worse less because it's a battle between afluent Republicans and poor Whites (which certainly isn't even entirely true anymore)?

[Franzl]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

[Franzl]

Only problem is that what You're saying isn't confirmed by reality.

[Franzl]

For example:

2008: DEMs have 53pc of the vote....and actually 59pc of seats.

2006: DEMs have 52pc of the vote...and 54 pc of seats.

2004: DEMs have 46pc of both seats and votes.



Forgive me, but I don't see how gerrymandering benefits only Republicans.