consider this: Rwa2play: No, it's "winner take all"...again read the wiki first genius.When you come back, be sure to have a good reason why states should stick with "winner take all" and not split the votes.
Rwa2play: "Winner take all" is efficient, concise and, with two notable exceptions in nearly 220 years, pretty much an easier way to decide a Presidential vote..
consider this: Rwa2play: "Winner take all" is efficient, concise and, with two notable exceptions in nearly 220 years, pretty much an easier way to decide a Presidential vote.Well actually, there have been 4 instances of it not working. Guess somebody edited wikipedia on you.
consider this: Coco LaFemme: Winner-takes-all is not only the best method in terms of the math, but the best method for insuring that the entire state's population is considered, rather than just those that are most beneficial to the candidate.Yes, potentially invalidating the vote of 49.99% of the vote in a state is certainly the best way to do things.
consider this: Coco LaFemme: If you eliminate the Electoral College and only use the popular vote, candidates will completely ignore smaller, less populated states, in favor of heavily populated areas.Yeah because they don't do that now. Can you come up with a thought of your own or is everything you say something you've read on the internet?
moralpanic: Cletus C.: Emposter: Given Romney's history and stated positions, can anyone explain to me the significant differences between negative campaigning and simply describing Romney accurately?What are the dems supposed to do here, lie to make Romney look good?Maybe give us some reason to vote for Obama, other than Romney Bad.Killed Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't himSaved the economy from collapsing? Wasn't himSaved Detroit? Who cares about Detroit/wasn't himHealth care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terriblePulled out of Iraq? Fair enoughActually bombing terrorists where they hid in Pakistan? And killing innocents in the process. He's no better than bush hereEnding Don't Ask Don't Tell? Fair enoughGot Gaddafi killed without putting any American soldiers in danger? Wasn't himDidn't raise taxes, and don't want to raise taxes on the middle class? He wants to raise it on people who've already paid their share in taxesWhen Americans are held hostages, he gets the SEALs to kill the pirates and hostage takers? Fair enoughWhen there's a disaster, he isn't incompetent? He is incompetentHe doesn't base his foreign policy by looking into the soul of the person? I'm pretty sure he rolls a diceHe's actually well liked by the world community? A rock, when compared to the way Bush was received by the community, would have been liked more than him. Not an improvement, really
Nem Wan: A sign this election is, so far, not as close as 2008 or 2004 is that on these electoral college tracking polls, Romney has NEVER been ahead. In the two previous elections the lines crossed and the lead changed hands. Not this time, not yet.
My offhand impression has been that the pace of presidential polling has been much slower than in 2008: that by this point in 2008, for instance, it would have been extremely unusual to not have any new state polls out on a given weekday, as happened on Monday.It turns out that this is not just my imagination. I looked up the numbers - and the pace of polling has fallen quite dramatically from four years ago.
Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe if the Republicans tried saying more than just "OBAMA EVIL! ROMNEY NOT OBAMA! VOTE ROMNEY!"
Rockstone: Health care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terrible
consider this: Rwa2play: You still missed the point: 4 times in nearly 220 years? If you're asking for perfection, look elsewhere or better yet, stop looking. You'll be disappointed on what you think perfection should be and what it is.I'm asking for a system that counts the vote of every person, is that too much to ask?
Rockstone: Dumb words
moralpanic: [img37.imageshack.us image 395x500] I think i'm actually going to miss this election once it's over.
consider this: Rwa2play: Yes it is; Now, do we award part of the Vince Lombardi trophy to the New England Patriots for coming within one play of winning it? No; Giants had more points than them, so they won the trophy.Same rule applies here; sorry if it doesn't meet up with your "lofty" standards.There we have it folks, the most ridiculous analogy in the history of the internet.
consider this: Coco LaFemme: I don't know if you're still pissed off Gore didn't win, or what.....but the Electoral College is a system that works, and has worked very, very well for the last 235 years. If I have a box that does something, and it's been doing this something for 235 years, and only 4 times in 235 years it did not work, I would not throw that box out and get a new box.Yes, I mean what's the big deal if we elect a president with the minority of the vote once in a while?
Tor_Eckman: Well, I guess I was wrong about Consider This.You guys have turned him from being nothing but a squeaky wannabe into a pro in just one thread.I am disappoint.
Coco LaFemme: New York City is nearly half of New York state's population. It is heavily Democratic. Chicago is 1/4 of Illinois's population. It is heavily Democratic. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area is about half of California's population. It is heavily Democratic.Sensing a pattern here? Large, urban areas are predominantly Democratic. Rural, more sparsely-populated areas are not. That goes for above and below the Mason-Dixon line. If the only vote that elected the President was the popular vote, candidates would only appeal to heavily populated areas, where they have the best chance to get the most voters. People in Bumblefarkville with the one stoplight wouldn't bother voting, because there would be no point.Voter turnout in this country already sucks, you want to make it worse?
consider this: Rwa2play: Why? What you're asking for is what's happening with some kids' leagues all over the country: Every kid gets a trophy, regardless of whether they won or lost.Stop trying to top yourself.
Bloody William: Conversely, if you really believe democracy is one person, one vote, the electoral college gives the residents of Bumfark, AK far too much influence over who runs this nation that happens to have a very large number of people in large, urban areas.How many thousand New Yorkers have the same amount of influence as one Wyoming resident when it comes to electing a senator?
consider this: three elections ago is soooooooooooooooooooo long ag
Bloody William: the electoral college
Bloody William: electing a senator
consider this: Rwa2play: So yeah, while Bush won and that sucked balls, the EC worked because it settled the matter right then and there.Somebody doesn't remember 2000 that well. The electoral college is a ridiculous, outdated and not needed way of choosing a president, bottom line.
Marcus Aurelius: CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?I love how "upset" conservatives are getting because Obama's campaign has gone "negative." It seems like every other commercial here in Ohio is claiming that Obama is stealing money from your Grandma, hates all small businesses and other such nonsense, but those of course aren't negative, right?They're upset about confronting a Democrat with a spinal column. This one actually fights back, which is clearly unfair.
Coco LaFemme: Do I send this sock-puppet off to the Island of Misfit Toys now, or do I wait a while longer?
consider this: Rwa2play: So IOW you would've wanted the other option? Weeks and weeks of not just verifying the votes but legal challenges galore as to who's vote counts?What happened in Florida happened with the electoral college in place. What in the hell are you even trying to say? Whether or not the electoral college exists, votes still need to be accurately counted.
Keizer_Ghidorah: Rockstone: Health care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terribleSo you're saying Romney's health care plan is terrible?
A Dark Evil Omen: Rockstone: Dumb wordsAnd I'll bet you really believe that this is a meaningful response, too.
consider this: Keizer_Ghidorah: Anyway, it's been in place for almost two and a half centuries and only had four problems. That's a far better ratio than some other things. Perfection is an impossibility.In this case, perfection is as simple as adding up all the votes that have been counted and declaring a winner.
Rockstone: Keizer_Ghidorah: Rockstone: Health care for everybody? It's not, and his plan is terribleSo you're saying Romney's health care plan is terrible?Well, yes
consider this: Coco LaFemme: Do I send this sock-puppet off to the Island of Misfit Toys now, or do I wait a while longer?Well it's official, somebody lost the argument.
Kumana Wanalaia: [s7.postimage.org image 641x568]upload picture
thurstonxhowell: Bloody William: the electoral collegeBloody William: electing a senatorNo.
consider this: Coco LaFemme: You can't lose an argument when one person is arguing facts, and the other is arguing opinion. I presented the facts of why the EC works, why changing the system of electoral vote apportionment is problematic, and why dropping it altogether in favor of popular vote only would disenfranchise more voters than it empowers. What did you do? None of that.There is a reason the "loser" won only four times in 235 years, and not 20 times or something. The system works, and it's worked very well. It will continue to work well, and your butthurt over 2000 isn't going to change that. So go log into your other account and leave this one to rest, Scooter.Hey guys, the loser only won 4 times so it's a pretty good system. Never mind the fact that the winner would have won in every presidential election in our history if not for the electoral college. You've presented nothing but an opinion, a ridiculous one.
Sensei Can You See: Karac: And if you can't take the word of someone who has been accused of associating with cocaine funded terrorists, of killing cancer patients, and of torturing dogs, then who can you trust?I just realized something: Obama has never been accused of farking sheep on the White House lawn. Nor has be been accused of feeding poisoned dead rats to Haitian orphans. In fact, he has also never once been accused of stuffing puppies into a blender. Has he ever been accused of kidnapping nuns and selling them into sexual slavery? Not that I'm aware of.
InfamousBLT: CommieTaoist: Where's the link to the felon claim?I love how "upset" conservatives are getting because Obama's campaign has gone "negative." It seems like every other commercial here in Ohio is claiming that Obama is stealing money from your Grandma, hates all small businesses and other such nonsense, but those of course aren't negative, right?This. The best part is, my idiot parents keep complaining about how "Obama has a smear campaign." When I ask about the Romney commercials they say "well at least those are factual."I don't even know how to argue derp like that.
Weaver95: Did the Republicans seriously believe that Obama's campaign wasn't going to fight back...?ok, Republicans listen up. Obama is kicking your asses. you guys have lied, manipulated, spent oodles of cash, 'shaded' the truth...and basically done everything that's in your playbook...and it's not working. Obama not only has a copy of your playbook, he's obviously made sure all his people read it as well. so either you come up with something new and radical, or you fail. this is your chance to show america that you guys have what it takes! quit sniveling, you whiny maggots! get yer heads in the game!
Coco LaFemme: If I have a box that does something, and it's been doing this something for 235 years, and only 4 times in 235 years it did not work, I would not throw that box out and get a new box.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 27 2017 20:54:33
Runtime: 0.436 sec (436 ms)