The electoral college and how it changes voting

Its a tiresome argument. Not because wanting a nationwide popular vote is in itself a bad thing. I mean, we don’t do this in the states for governors or the cities for mayors. If the EC is such a good idea (I think it is—I’m just playing devil’s advocate here), why not give counties in states weighted votes and decide the governorships that way? Its a tiresome argument because the truth is that there is no 100% perfect system. I think the EC is as close as we can get given the obvious cause-and-effect that would take place if we went with NPV. You’d have candidates only campaign in large population centers and that would be it.

And remember, I’m as liberal as you can get and supposedly the liberal candidate got screwed twice in 16 years by this thing. Libs need to understand that if you lose, it doesn’t mean you were screwed; it means the other guy won. I think Gore lost the election by not embracing 8 years of peace and prosperity. Clinton didn’t lose, Trump beat her by recognizing a reality that people like me didn’t see. I still do not feel the “anger” is an issue. Elsewise, why are so many incumbents going back to Washington? The reality is that mechanisms that were supposed to do XY&Z are not working for a great many people in this nation. Hillary wanted to strengthen them and do some more programs. Not a winning strategy when you can’t get the car to start to add a new stereo and power windows.

Yesterday morning, I did something I don’t do very often. I went out to the ER (the employee gym is next to the ER in my building). I usually take the employee elevators down to the Central Supply and go to the gym that way. This time, I took the public lift to the ground floor and walked through the ER. I’m not sure why. I guess I wanted to get a look at the people for a change. One lady was there. Hispanic 50-70 y/o (couldn’t tell; she was in that bad a shape) with edema in both feet. Her chanclas were actually squeezing her feet around the toes because they were so swollen. The color of her face was caramel coffee; lovely Hispanic skin. Her feet? Looked like raw eggplant. I don’t know much Spanish so I don’t know what was being said between the intake and the patient but this is 7 years after the ACA??? Now, this lady may have just landed here from Guatemala or maybe she is a native Arizonan. Maybe she has insurance; maybes she doesn’t. Maybe this was an acute condition brought on by new heart failure. I don’t know. I get the feeling though that she is or was the target audience for the ACA. For whatever reason, she didn’t find it affordable enough for her to get the insurance or the care it insures and act upon the medical conditions.


A more positive pursuit for federal campaign reform is one that gets rid of this maniacal system we have of a 15 month campaign with two to three (face it) very insignificant (population-wise) states deciding which candidates move on in the contest. The States should take back control of the primary system from the Parties and move to five regional primaries that involve 7-13 states each month. Start it in March and end it in August. Have your conventions and then a 3 month sprint to the General.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.
Funny Democrats wanting equality for everyone, but are railing against an electoral system that does just that for the voters.

Such an irony.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.
Were you paying attention in school when the teachers explained the large state / small state issue and debate ?! The bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House Of Reps deals with that issue at the legislative level.

At the Presidential level, the electoral college deals with this issue perfectly as well.

I understand the system. I just don't like how a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.
Because they have great flyfishing. And that's reason enough.

So all the flies get a vote too huh? Well, ain't the dumokrussy?
 
Hillary and the Dems should be happy that she did so well in an election that has historically punished the party in control of the Oval.

They should be happy more people voted for them and they lost? Er.... yeah, I'll kick you in the balls and tell you that you should be happy you don't have testicular cancer.

I get you're not happy with the results. Neither am I. Trump simply ran a better campaign than Hillary and she never made the connection with the voter that Trump did. I feel that the way he made that connection was wholly dishonest but there is no penalty for that which is enforceable without another election.
I learned something this election.Hillary Clinton would NEVER have won no matter what she did. She was not trusted by people in the majority of states. She couldn't beat a man child with orange skin a comb over and a perchant for tweeting stupidity at night.

And yet she got more votes than the orange skinned one.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.


I'll give you credit for one thing: you are finely attuned to the Prog Dog Whistle.

Wow, insults.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Liberals developed the Electoral College.
 
If the Democrats take the White House back in 2020 everyone who thinks the EC is unfair will be fine with it again and all will be right in their world again.

Well no. Because if the Dems win the EC in 2020, it will mean they also won the popular vote.

In the last 100 years the Democrats have never won the EC without winning the popular vote. Quite clearly the EC gives an advantage to smaller states, most of which are right states.
 
Whine, whine whine. The Electoral College was established by Constitutional law. Bill Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in 1992 but nobody on the left complained about it at the time.
 
Last edited:
A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years.

You're a fucking uneducated moron, as are most people on this subject. The intended purpose of the Electoral College was to provide influence for slave states, where the majority of people were disenfranchised. That's the fucking purpose. Essentially the same purpose as the 3/5s rule is what the Electoral College was intended to accomplish..

So in your pea brain analysis, why don't we just write a brand new Constitution since most of it was written over 200 years ago. We could replace the Bill of Rights with the Bill of Nice Thoughts. Would that work for you moron...

The point is, the FF were afraid of direct democracy, or mob rule.
 
If the Democrats take the White House back in 2020 everyone who thinks the EC is unfair will be fine with it again and all will be right in their world again.

Well no. Because if the Dems win the EC in 2020, it will mean they also won the popular vote.

In the last 100 years the Democrats have never won the EC without winning the popular vote. Quite clearly the EC gives an advantage to smaller states, most of which are right states.

are they not full members of the union as well or should we just pander to the larger states? You lefties get more divisive by the minute....
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Liberals developed the Electoral College.

Yes, in a different time.
 
More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.
Actually the odds of one person's vote is more likely to swing a national election under the electoral college system.

If people do not like the electoral college system then they are welcome to start their own republic.

which ensures that each vote counts.
 
Whine, whine whine. The Electoral College was established by Constitutional law. Bill Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote in 1992 but nobody on the left complained about it at the time.

Probably because he won more votes than anyone else.

You say "whine, whine, whine" when the right have been doing just that for 8 years. People want their vote to count the same as everyone else's vote, it's not hard to understand, is it?
 
If the Democrats take the White House back in 2020 everyone who thinks the EC is unfair will be fine with it again and all will be right in their world again.

Well no. Because if the Dems win the EC in 2020, it will mean they also won the popular vote.

In the last 100 years the Democrats have never won the EC without winning the popular vote. Quite clearly the EC gives an advantage to smaller states, most of which are right states.

are they not full members of the union as well or should we just pander to the larger states? You lefties get more divisive by the minute....

Yes, they're full members of the union. But not each state gets the same number of EC votes.

Either have it that each state gets 1 vote, or have it that each adult gets 1 vote.

Right now it's a situation where some people get 3 votes, some get 2 votes, some get 1 votes. Oh, great.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Liberals developed the Electoral College.

Yes, in a different time.

How come, then, this was not a concern as you have laid out, in the prior Presidential Election:

Nominee Party Running mate Electoral Vote
- Barack Obama Democratic Joe Biden 332
- Mitt Romney Republican Paul Ryan 206
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Liberals developed the Electoral College.

Yes, in a different time.

How come, then, this was not a concern as you have laid out, in the prior Presidential Election:

Nominee Party Running mate Electoral Vote
- Barack Obama Democratic Joe Biden 332
- Mitt Romney Republican Paul Ryan 206

Because in 2012, 2008, 1996, 1992 etc the President won the popular vote.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Liberals developed the Electoral College.

Yes, in a different time.

How come, then, this was not a concern as you have laid out, in the prior Presidential Election:

Nominee Party Running mate Electoral Vote
- Barack Obama Democratic Joe Biden 332
- Mitt Romney Republican Paul Ryan 206

Because in 2012, 2008, 1996, 1992 etc the President won the popular vote.

With the popular vote, it is skewed towards highly concentrated LA, NY, Chicago, that would all a candidate would need to focus.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Liberals developed the Electoral College.

Yes, in a different time.

How come, then, this was not a concern as you have laid out, in the prior Presidential Election:

Nominee Party Running mate Electoral Vote
- Barack Obama Democratic Joe Biden 332
- Mitt Romney Republican Paul Ryan 206

Because in 2012, 2008, 1996, 1992 etc the President won the popular vote.

With the popular vote, it is skewed towards highly concentrated LA, NY, Chicago, that would all a candidate would need to focus.

Well, does it matter? Either way the focus of candidates is going one place or another.

Is it fairer that swing states get all the focus? Right now it's hardly fair, and focusing on the areas where... there are people, doesn't sound totally unfair.

Or why not just do a senate, and have 1 vote for the EC for each state. No voting for the people, just have the states choose. Simples.
Then the President can suck up to the states instead of the people.

Either way nothing changes that much, other than the level of fairness.

What isn't fair is that a person in Wyoming has 3 times the vote a person in Florida, California, New York or Texas has.
 
So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.
Were you paying attention in school when the teachers explained the large state / small state issue and debate ?! The bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House Of Reps deals with that issue at the legislative level.

At the Presidential level, the electoral college deals with this issue perfectly as well.

I understand the system. I just don't like how a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.
Because they have great flyfishing. And that's reason enough.

So all the flies get a vote too huh? Well, ain't the dumokrussy?
Only during a mayfly hatch.
 

Forum List

Back
Top