So you’re just opposed to the semantics. Much like the whole policing thing, you’re going to put a lot of effort into changing and complicating things to accomplish the same purpose what we already have accomplishes. But it’ll have a different name, so it’ll be a “fix”.
No. They still will not waste time on areas that aren’t competitive. The only way to expand campaigning is to offer a prize for second place. I’m more in favor of banning campaigning in its current form altogether.
It wasn’t.
Intent was to call out that same (current) distribution here. Apportionment by states’ populations (plus additional fixed amount), not apportioned by the number of people who vote in each state.
Not opposed to the semantics, I didn’t say I was opposed to anything.
But if we’re going to potentially revamp things, it just seems unnecessary to pretend there is still an EC of “electors” voting, and why not streamline the process at the same time? The EC’s actual vote have not been paid attention to, anyways, anytime in modern history. Once the states’ votes are sufficiently tallied and there’s a clear “winner” by more than the margin of error, people don’t wait for the EC to meet and physically “vote”, nor do they pay attention to that.
1 Like
I agree they would not waste time in area with no chance of winning. But on the other hand, many more places would be competitive. Many States have blue enclaves in a sea or red or vice versa. Or at least have purple districts. If you skipped all those in your campaign because it’s only 1-2 electoral votes here and there, in the end, I think you’d leave a lot of electoral votes on the table.
That said, splitting electoral votes according to % tally in each State could work as well. As long as voters in each State do not feel like there is no point showing up at the polls because their vote won’t make a difference in the outcome. I’m fortunate - or unfortunate from the standpoint of being bombarded with ads - to be voting in what is often a swing State but that’s not the majority of the country and IMO that needs to be addressed.
First, it’s obviously disputable whether it has served our country well. It most certainly did not serve us well in the recent history with Bush and Trump taking presidency while losing the popular vote.
Second, just because we’ve been doing something for two hundred fifty years doesn’t mean it’s the best or even the right way to do it. The founders knew that they didn’t have all the answers and put some rules in place so future generations can make improvements.
1 Like
The popular vote is irrelevant to American POTUS elections by design, and has been from the founding. It is merely liberal doggerel which challenges this.
Good ideas and methods stand the test of time. Marxist approaches do not. Case in point: the USSR.
Here we actually agree. Liberals who want to alter how we choose Presidents need to amend the Constitution.
1 Like
Really? Your desired candidate lost, so the system must’ve been broken?
I’d say it shows the system worked, preventing a couple select areas from hijacking the election, and ensuring every state in fact was represented in the results.
There’s no reason a popular vote is even tallied, except for curiosity. It’s simply irrelevant in a presidential election.
2 Likes
I’m going to make a prediction because I enjoy making predictions. Also, if you make enough predictions you might even end up being right on occasion . . . . albeit in my case, rarely. Anyway:
I predict President Trump will contract a coronavirus infection within the next 119 days. It will be serious and will take him off the campaign trail, quite possibly for weeks.
Biden? Not so much. I do not envision Biden meeting the same fate.
These are rather turbulent times already. If my prediction comes true things will become even more so.
So will Trump perish? Obviously I hope not, but I have no prediction to offer regarding this matter. He should pull through, but the virus will deal him a mighty blow. It could be close.
Finally, will Biden curtail his campaign effort during the time Trump is laid up? I will answer that question with another:
How would we know?
I enjoy your predictions. On the virus front, I would expect he wouldn’t have too bad a case, since unlike many, he’s willing to take HCQ early on if he’s exposed ;).
1 Like
shinobi… Your prediction makes me sick…
I predict that we will see our scientist come up with a remedy for the virus. Probably in late Sept-Oct.
Looks like there is more good results with oxychlori----- (sp) right now. Brazil Pres may be using it.
Our President will pick up speed & tower over marx, comunism, liberal dems. Throw out the governors & mayors of cities with murder, crime, rubbish at their feet.
Get rid of all of them… Only keep our good, fun loving, faithful, respectful. MAGA!! 
Lol.
"
President Trump’s relentless attacks on the security of mail voting are driving suspicion among GOP voters toward absentee ballots — a dynamic alarming Republican strategists, who say it could undercut their own candidates, including Trump himself.
In several primaries this spring, Democratic voters have embraced mail ballots in far larger numbers than Republicans during a campaign season defined by the coronavirus pandemic. And when they urge their supporters to vote by mail, GOP campaigns around the country are hearing from more and more Republican voters who say they do not trust absentee ballots, according to multiple strategists. In one particularly vivid example, a group of Michigan voters held a public burning of their absentee ballot applications last month.
"
If they’re supporters of in-person voting, wouldnt it stand to reason that they’ll be voting in person? Much like the vote itself, when you have options, you choose the option you feel is best.
I dont see why it’s such a hard concept to grasp - absentee ballots are a legit necessity, universal mail-in voting is not. There’s nothing inconsistent or contradictory about it.
No, these are people who requested ballots…
Sorry. Not my intent.
He is using it.
Also I take your point about Trump having ready access to HCQS, and I failed to factor that into my prediction. It simply did not occur to me.
Given he will start HCQS early in event of infection, I now am thinking Trump will be OK.
Counterpoint: China. It hasn’t stood the test of time for as long, but I’m pretty sure their economy and totalitarian control is much stronger than USSR’s. They’ve just annexed HK 20 (?) years too soon and nobody can or will do much about that because of how powerful China has become, unfortunately. I don’t see the light at the end of that tunnel.
Or he might be worse off if he gets arrhythmia, which could cause death. Or is that no longer the leading theory? I stopped following covid news… 
Thank FSM that the President doesn’t have this power.
HCQS can definitely get into your heart and mess it up. Frankly, the drug can kill you.
But the reason few to no such outcomes have happened in the last fifty years is that doctors prescribing the drug have familiarity with the risks and how to avoid them. Principal way to do that is by limiting daily dose.
I would take HCQS early if threatened by the virus . . . but not more than 200mg/day even if prescribed. Frankly, I would be afraid of the commonplace first day, one time, “loading dose” of 400mg.
The drug is safe at 200mg/day and has been used that way for a great many years. Why tempt fate?
1 Like
I just don’t get it. Studies intentionally giving patients 2-3x the typical dose is “proof” it’s dangerous, while me claiming that wearing a mask isn’t necessary in many situations is “carelessly killing people”.
Only one of those things is needlessly harming people just to prove a point.