1989

Colorado Choosing to GIve up its National Voice

Recommended Posts

So Colorado is seeking to tie its Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote in presidential elections.  No further need for candidates to campaign there, since the popular vote will be tied to states with much larger populations.  Eleven states and DC are looking to practically give their votes to California, Florida, New York, and Texas (the four most populated states in America).  It's scary what Democrats will do to undermine the Union, or at least disenfranchise more rural states that probably don't vote for them anyway.  I'm sorry, but turning our presidential elections into popularity contests isn't going to fix what's wrong with America.

 

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/12/colorado-national-popular-vote-bill-electoral-college/

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 1989 said:

I'm sorry, but turning our presidential elections into popularity contests isn't going to fix what's wrong with America.

Yeah, much better to let the party machines give us their preselected candidates and then gerrymander and suppress votes. The current system works so well!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, florduh said:

Yeah, much better to let the party machines give us their preselected candidates and then gerrymander and suppress votes. The current system works so well!

 

Changing how we count electoral votes won't give us a system that gives us any better candidates, and it won't stop voter suppression either.  The current system isn't perfect, but at least more rural states have a voice.  If we just give away votes to the popular candidate, why would anyone campaign in middle America?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1989 said:

So Colorado is seeking to tie its Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote in presidential elections.  No further need for candidates to campaign there, since the popular vote will be tied to states with much larger populations.  Eleven states and DC are looking to practically give their votes to California, Florida, New York, and Texas (the four most populated states in America).  It's scary what Democrats will do to undermine the Union, or at least disenfranchise more rural states that probably don't vote for them anyway.  I'm sorry, but turning our presidential elections into popularity contests isn't going to fix what's wrong with America.

 

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/12/colorado-national-popular-vote-bill-electoral-college/

 

Why is it that rural areas are more likely to vote conservative and urban areas liberal? Any ide why this is? Happens in NZ too - our right wing party generally will win the rural and regional areas, while the left wing will win the larger centers. If NZ had an electoral system the left would never win.

 

I don't think the popular vote would change much. What people don't like is the electoral vote producing one result and the popular vote showing another result.

 

The 'problem' with democracy is generally 50% of the population doesn't like any given result. One of the ways to fix that is to break up the two party dichotomy and have a system where many smaller parties from all over the spectrum have to come together and work together thus giving a fairer shot at everyone being represented. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

One of the ways to fix that is to break up the two party dichotomy and have a system where many smaller parties from all over the spectrum have to come together and work together thus giving a fairer shot at everyone being represented.

It has always been glaringly obvious that this is the solution and equally obvious that the power brokers will never let this happen. Those in power don't want fair, they want only to win at any cost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the DNC and RNC ban Third Party Candidates from the national debates after Ross Perot wrecked the 1992 election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 1989 said:

Didn't the DNC and RNC ban Third Party Candidates from the national debates after Ross Perot wrecked the 1992 election?

 

They set the bar high so that it's difficult. That's what Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was up against last time. 

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1989 said:

Didn't the DNC and RNC ban Third Party Candidates from the national debates after Ross Perot wrecked the 1992 election?

Yes. The debates used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters. But, as you note, the big two didn't like what happened, so they wanted conditions on the debates that the League would not agree to. So the two parties created their own commission on presidential debates, effectively shutting out any other candidates.

 

What we need are multiple parties, proportional representation, a limit on campaign spending, and a defined time (such as 90 days) for campaigning.

 

But in the end, it is and always will be, an oligarchy — as are most governments — regardless of what is done.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Why is it that rural areas are more likely to vote conservative and urban areas liberal? Any ide why this is? Happens in NZ too - our right wing party generally will win the rural and regional areas, while the left wing will win the larger centers. If NZ had an electoral system the left would never win.

 

Country people are more inclined to conservative values. In the cities it's more modern and progressive. More liberal usually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites