ThomasDenton 79 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_3d432c04-6583-11e2-9c6e-001a4bcf6878.html Virginia is looking to be the third state to divide up its electoral votes in presidential elections, instead of going with the "winner-take-all" method. The article actually mentioned that in the last election, if this system were in place, Obama would've only won 4 votes from VA while Romney would've won 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 I love this method. Doesn't allow cities and suburbs to decide everything. It will never pass the GA Senate, but I am a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichlandsAlum 678 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 One could argue that it further erodes the power of the states relative to the federal government. Other than that, I got nothin'. It's actually pretty logical, IMO. If only California would take this approach.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) It seems like everyone says "it doesent matter if I vote or not, my 1 vote wont matter". I think adjusting the system would eliminate that feeling and hopefully result in higher voter turnout which imo is good for the country. I see nothing but good comming from such a change. Why dont the states do it? tradition? gives the state less importance as a whole? Edited January 24, 2013 by redtiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Lets just can the Electoral College all together and go strictly on the popular vote. It would also force candidates to take each state seriously and not just focus on battleground states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasDenton 79 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Lets just can the Electoral College all together and go strictly on the popular vote. It would also force candidates to take each state seriously and not just focus on battleground states. The only problem with getting rid of the electorate vote is that while people today are MUCH more informed and much more educated than people of the past, too many people still vote for a president for the wrong reasons. You'll still have a great deal of people voting for a candidate because of how they act like a celebrity (like with Obama....remember when he was called the "rockstar president"?). I don't like the electoral college, but I think it's still needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 while people today are MUCH more informed and much more educated than people of the past Could not possibly be more wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichlandsAlum 678 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Lets just can the Electoral College all together and go strictly on the popular vote. It would also force candidates to take each state seriously and not just focus on battleground states. Disagree. I think a move to a strict popular vote would see candidates focusing almost exclusively on the largest metropolitan areas with the net result that the states would become completely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 It would also force candidates to take each state seriously and not just focus on battleground states. I disagree, if anything it would lead candiates to only pander to large populated states and areas, leaving rural America out in the cold. That is one advantage, albeit small, of the Electoral College, in that it forces candidates to give more consideration the wants and needs of each individual state. A popular vote only method would reduce the wishes of small states to the whims of the larger more populated states. Which was one area the Electoral College was designed to assist in preventing. We need the Electoral College but a compromise like the one above is something worthy of consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Could not possibly be more wrong. Amen to that!!!! Just for kicks consider the questions given to a Geography student in 1890 compared to the questions given today. The knowledge bank expected of students then is overwhelmingly large, compared to the bank of knowledge exhibited and required by students this day and time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Amen to that!!!! Just for kicks consider the questions given to a Geography student in 1890 compared to the questions given today. The knowledge bank expected of students then is overwhelmingly large, compared to the bank of knowledge exhibited and required by students this day and time. Just remember that prior to the progressive movement, we weren't concerned about educating the masses. What is fun is to go back and compare the literacy rate in 1940 to today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamerball 566 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Too many still vote for whoever is Republican or Democrat and nothing else. I was in college when Bush was still in term and the election was nearing then for Obama's first term, and I was in a history class with an Asian professor teaching the course. All the guy would do is talk highly of Obama. Gun control was a big topic for him, and he boasted how safe his country was without guns. Interesting thing is, the very next year they were hosting the Olympics when that American couple was stabbed over there. I wished I was in that class when that happened, just to hear his reaction. But it was in that class that I realized how doomed we were. If you'll remember the youth vote dominated again, along with the minority and such. The prof. was going around the class one day asking who the students would vote and majority were Obama fans. The scary part was actually why they were. For the most part, the exact phrase uttered from their mouths was "I like the way he speaks". And that was just about all they would have to say about it. Most didn't seem to know what all he stood for or the others for that matter. You could have switched some of the issues around for each candidate and most, including outside the class, wouldn't have known the difference. They didn't like how Bush spoke and thought Obama was the greatest just for his public speaking skills. That was scary to know that they could be so easily influenced by someone's good speaking skills and hardly nothing more. But you see a lot of things now. Its like the issues with climate change, healthy lifestyles, or tune in to a nickelodeon stations to see a liberally dominated feed with Michelle Obama making appearances that will influence the younger generations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Too many still vote for whoever is Republican or Democrat and nothing else. I was in college when Bush was still in term and the election was nearing then for Obama's first term, and I was in a history class with an Asian professor teaching the course. All the guy would do is talk highly of Obama. Gun control was a big topic for him, and he boasted how safe his country was without guns. Interesting thing is, the very next year they were hosting the Olympics when that American couple was stabbed over there. I wished I was in that class when that happened, just to hear his reaction. But it was in that class that I realized how doomed we were. If you'll remember the youth vote dominated again, along with the minority and such. The prof. was going around the class one day asking who the students would vote and majority were Obama fans. The scary part was actually why they were. For the most part, the exact phrase uttered from their mouths was "I like the way he speaks". And that was just about all they would have to say about it. Most didn't seem to know what all he stood for or the others for that matter. You could have switched some of the issues around for each candidate and most, including outside the class, wouldn't have known the difference. They didn't like how Bush spoke and thought Obama was the greatest just for his public speaking skills. That was scary to know that they could be so easily influenced by someone's good speaking skills and hardly nothing more. But you see a lot of things now. Its like the issues with climate change, healthy lifestyles, or tune in to a nickelodeon stations to see a liberally dominated feed with Michelle Obama making appearances that will influence the younger generations. A symptom of the malady of being loaded with a populace that has little/no understanding about HOW the world functions, just that it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasDenton 79 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Could not possibly be more wrong. How is that? We have an incredible amount of information today even compared to just 20 years ago. Way more news websites, tv channels, and such that are giving out information 24/7. And kids today are learning at a much more rapid pace and will further expand all the technology and such that we have greatly when they're older (I have a one year old niece and two year old nephew who can literally work parts of a smart phone, like pulling up their favorite videos on youtube with it). Now if you're talking attention span or something along those lines, then I'd agree that kids today have the attention span of a goldfish and it's because of this information overload. But I just can't see how you could disagree with the fact that people today know an incredible amount more than the average person did at any other point in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) More information is avaliable now but alot of that information is spun in one direction or another and news has become entertainment. So the arguement could be made that even though there is more information avaliable the quality has dropped. Im not for getting rid of the Electorial College, in its current form it is very flawed imo but still has its place. Dividing the states EC votes up by congressional district actually would make the rural parts of the state more important on the national stage. As it sits now District 9 for example is of little importance to candidates, the same would be true is the EC was eliminated and the president was chosen by popular vote, there is simple too much ground to cover and not enough votes to be gained. Giving the District 1 independent vote would make it more important and worthy of attention. As far as literacy rates, its my understanding that literacy rates in far SWVA were relatively high before the coal boom of the early 20th century. Certainly higher than in urban areas. But did drop off sharply after the coal industry came to the area. Edited January 25, 2013 by redtiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 How is that? We have an incredible amount of information today even compared to just 20 years ago. Way more news websites, tv channels, and such that are giving out information 24/7. And kids today are learning at a much more rapid pace and will further expand all the technology and such that we have greatly when they're older (I have a one year old niece and two year old nephew who can literally work parts of a smart phone, like pulling up their favorite videos on youtube with it). Now if you're talking attention span or something along those lines, then I'd agree that kids today have the attention span of a goldfish and it's because of this information overload. But I just can't see how you could disagree with the fact that people today know an incredible amount more than the average person did at any other point in history. We have access to more information today than ever before in history, but access to information does not make us smarter. Today, an overwhelming majority of Americans are historically illiterate, they do not know who we are, were we came from nor how our government is supposed to function. I know that this alone does not constitute mass ignorance of every subject, but it does shine a light on a segment of our decrease in knowledge. Children may very well know how to operate a smart phone, video games etc, I suppose that if I stayed in front of a t.v. screen or played a video game for 8 hours a day, that I too would be able to operate it fluently within a short period of time. This does not make me smarter, however. I will sum it up with two words.............COMMON SENSE! The common use and understanding of the English language was much more broad a 100 years ago than it is today. There are many contributing factors and much could be said about computers, and programs that do the "thinking" or correcting for us. But when it comes to vernacular we most assuredly are a much dumber generation. Remember George Bush "Is our children learning...." quote! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 How is that? We have an incredible amount of information today even compared to just 20 years ago. Way more news websites, tv channels, and such that are giving out information 24/7. And kids today are learning at a much more rapid pace and will further expand all the technology and such that we have greatly when they're older (I have a one year old niece and two year old nephew who can literally work parts of a smart phone, like pulling up their favorite videos on youtube with it). Now if you're talking attention span or something along those lines, then I'd agree that kids today have the attention span of a goldfish and it's because of this information overload. But I just can't see how you could disagree with the fact that people today know an incredible amount more than the average person did at any other point in history. Part of it is that our coddling modern society has made it acceptable, even desirable, to foster the herd mentality, which stifles creative thought and intellect. Part of it is sensory overload: as you say, we have access to so much...but we as a society are focused so much on rote memory that we fail to comprehend why things are as they are. For example, we have children memorizing the Preamble to the Constitution, but not understanding why we have separation of powers. We have children learning Spanish, but not understanding how it derives from its Latin roots. My apologies for rambling. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.