Fan in San Diego Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Saw this slant on the news this morning saying the polls are reflecting that this scenario could play out. The story hinted Romney would get binders of lawyers to fight the decision. Not sure what that is all about. But how many republicans would still feel really good about the electoral college vote if this scenario did in fact play out? Edited October 20, 2012 by Fan in San Diego Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Saw this slant on the news this morning saying the polls are reflecting that this scenario could play out. The story hinted Romney would get binders of lawyers to fight the decision. Not sure what that is all about. But how many republicans would still feel really good about the electoral college vote if this scenario did in fact play out? Gibberish thread..........the only true sentence is the third one. I certainly would not presume to speak for the other conservatives on the board, but (while I would dislike the results of another 4 years of the incompetent Obama) it would not change my support for the Electoral College in the slightest. Our values are not that shallow. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 You could always set up a duel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Wouldn't affect my view of the Electoral College. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Gibberish thread..........the only true sentence is the third one. I certainly would not presume to speak for the other conservatives on the board, but (while I would dislike the results of another 4 years of the incompetent Obama) it would not change my support for the Electoral College in the slightest. Our values are not that shallow. . I am an Obama supporter. But I think the electoral college vote has out lived it's usefulness. I would prefer to see Romney win by the popular vote than Obama by the electoral college vote. My knock on the electoral college vote is that is tends to marginalize the citizens vote. It can create apathy in voters, I can see some people saying, 'Why vote it doesn't count anyways, the electoral can override the popular vote' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I am an Obama supporter. But I think the electoral college vote has out lived it's usefulness. I would prefer to see Romney win by the popular vote than Obama by the electoral college vote. My knock on the electoral college vote is that is tends to marginalize the citizens vote. It can create apathy in voters, I can see some people saying, 'Why vote it doesn't count anyways, the electoral can override the popular vote' Getting rid of the electoral college would be a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buff_bills4ever Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The president was never meant to be voted in by popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The president was never meant to be voted in by popular vote. Neither were Senators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Getting rid of the electoral college would be a mistake. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buff_bills4ever Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Neither were Senators And no one said I agreed with changing that either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I think it would be as stupid an argument as it was 12 years ago. And Romney wouldn't do anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Getting rid of the Electoral College would be the final nail in the coffin of our Republic. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Constitution that guarantees the people the right to vote in a POTUS election. It's up to the states to determine how the Electoral College members are selected. To make the presidential election totally on the populace, would mean, a candidate could focus only on something like major cities, or more populous states, ignoring the rest of the country... Anyone here, regardless of political belief, want NYC, LA, Chicago, and a handful of other cities to determine the direction of the country? How 'bout TX, GA, VA, AZ and a couple others???? Already, because of the disparity of population, the stats are skewed. But to make it ONLY by population, makes it worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 Getting rid of the Electoral College would be the final nail in the coffin of our Republic. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Constitution that guarantees the people the right to vote in a POTUS election. It's up to the states to determine how the Electoral College members are selected. To make the presidential election totally on the populace, would mean, a candidate could focus only on something like major cities, or more populous states, ignoring the rest of the country... Anyone here, regardless of political belief, want NYC, LA, Chicago, and a handful of other cities to determine the direction of the country? How 'bout TX, GA, VA, AZ and a couple others???? Already, because of the disparity of population, the stats are skewed. But to make it ONLY by population, makes it worse... Interesting, good explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Romney will sue, the SC will find against him, and we'll scream "Selected, not elected" for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Romney will sue, the SC will find against him, and we'll scream "Selected, not elected" for the foreseeable future. Then maybe he forms a Venture Capitalist group that buys up the entire Arctic Ice Cap and sells the fresh water at exorbitant prices to the world, making himself a billionaire many times over. Oh, sorry. I was thinking of AlGore and lost my head for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So I'm thinkin' it's too late to find someone who doesn't lie to us, shuck and jive through international concerns, and pander to their supposed "base?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 It would demonstrate that the electoral process is working as intended, even though the electorate isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Saw this slant on the news this morning saying the polls are reflecting that this scenario could play out. The story hinted Romney would get binders of lawyers to fight the decision. Not sure what that is all about. But how many republicans would still feel really good about the electoral college vote if this scenario did in fact play out? If there's credible evidence of mischief, then I'd expect your expectation of Romney hiring lawyers could play out. Whether he does or doesn't and regardless of who ends up winning, the electoral college is a good thing and should remain in place. We live in the United STATES of America, not the United Region of North America between Canada and Mexico. Much less chance of mischief when hypothetical cheating in Chicago could only turn IL or cheating in Dallas could only turn TX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Romney will sue, the SC will find against him, and we'll scream "Selected, not elected" for the foreseeable future. good Bush/Gore reference that no one else caught.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 If we went popular vote, because "it's more fair"....then the morons(guess who) who supported that would get, once again(like they always do), the opposite of what they intended. If it happened, then instead of having 11 or 12 battlegrounds that got all the attention, we'd have 3 states first, CA, TX, NY that got most of it, because all of these are political hubs, in addition to having the most votes. Then, a second tier that got far less attention in FL, IL, and PA. Maybe 2 more, depending on the year. Everybody else would get practically ignored, because, if each candidate could drive up/hold their numbers in each big pop. state, then that goes a much further in determining the outcome. For example, in 2008, Obama won CA by 24 pts. This time, he's leading by 14. That's considered a win for Romney. Now, imagine if Romney was there all the time...pointing out that the Obama EPA has taken away the CA farmer's water? Over and over, hitting that "government overreach" point, would drive down Obama's support even more. But, at some point, you hit a wall, where the best you can do is perhaps Obama +8. This is where you hope to be on election day. You assume that all the smaller states will vote for you, and that you've gotten a huge lead in TX, so you never set foot in them. Meanwhile, Obama does just the opposite, and the winner is determined by 8-9 big states, while the rest of the country is ignored, because a 3 pt swing in CA, has a bigger effect than a cumulative 3 pt shift in 10 little states. So, the far left ends up getting it's values challenged, and its failures examined, on a massive scale, over and over, because the "the war" is going to be largely fought in their backyard: in NY, CA, IL, and PA. No matter what, they will lose support if they are constantly being assaulted by ads/spots, etc. Meanwhile, the right only has to defend TX, and FL retains its swing state status. This is the exact opposite of what the left wants, but they will argue to get rid of the EC...because they are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts