Quote:
Originally Posted by shiraz9944
and this is exactly what I mean........you obviously didn't pay attention in said school. That's why the electoral system exists, so exactly what you're saying doesn't happen. The two coasts can't control the entire political system and those counties with less people but MORE land get equal say. Yes his electoral count is what election experts call a pretty big landslide (305-227), nearly as big as Obama over Romney (332-206).
Why there are two houses of congress. Senate for those seeking a solution for not giving all the governing power to the more populous states. The HofR is more reflective of the general population and it's funny because the GOP holds a larger margin in the HofR than the Senate. They made it this way on purpose so idiots on the coasts couldn't force their will on the middle less populous states. Read a book and UNDERSTAND what it is telling you.
If everyone was as liberal as you want people to believe, then why are 3/4 of both the state legislatures and governorships GOP controlled? Gerrymandering can't explain the Governorships so don't go there please. It's a tired and old argument that Dems use when they are in the minority of everything, but not when they are winning like the past 8 years. They couldn't muster the votes to pass the ACA so they nuked the filibuster, now they live with that decision and as soon as either this stuff goes away with Kushner being removed from the WH or Pence in power, either way. It's going to be an ugly 4 years at least for liberals as the conservative's smash every single thing down their throats and there isn't a thing they can do about it.
|
We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of a landslide.
As for the Electoral College, I think it is outdated and no longer needed. I also think it encourages disenfranchisement and corruption. Just look at the numbers. While Trump did lose the popular vote, it was still pretty close especially considering that he didn't bother campaigning in places like California or New York and Hillary didn't really campaign in places like Texas. Conservatives complain saying that we shouldn't allow the "idiots on the coasts" to run things. But should those "idiots" have to live the way someone living in a small town in Kansas decides? While I agree that someone in Kansas shouldn't have to live how someone in Los Angeles tells them to, the reverse is also true.
If it were a popular election, both candidates would have to campaign in all states to get all votes. One candidate could win every vote in California, Texas, New York, and Florida (the four most populous states) and still lose badly if the other candidate did well in other states.