Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
1. That is not one problem with letting states deciding
Sun Mar 15, 2015, 10:21 PM
Mar 2015

what elections should be for their states. Plus it doesn't help that Nebraska and Maine already use this method. If we nationalized the election then none of this would be happening.

Hawaii Hiker

(3,166 posts)
2. And the real kicker is, Nebraska is
Sun Mar 15, 2015, 10:35 PM
Mar 2015

likely going back to winner take all per article below.....They still can't accept Obama got 1 vote there in 2008....Keep in mind, if a Democratic candiate wins the one congressional district in NE, its already a landslide election (like 2008 was)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/us/politics/blue-dot-for-obama-prompts-red-nebraska-to-revisit-electoral-college-rules.html?_r=0

TheFarseer

(9,323 posts)
3. i think all states should split electoral votes like nebraska
Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:05 PM
Mar 2015

If one candidate gets beat in CA by 100 votes, the loser getting no credit whatsoever for millions of votes is insane IMO. Of course either party cherry picking certain states, I'm obviously against.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
6. I disagree. So long as most of this country is gerrymandered
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:55 PM
Mar 2015

to death, democracy will not be served. An alternative might be to assign electoral votes proportionally by state. If a candidate get 65% of the vote then they get 65% of the electoral votes.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
7. Which doesn't bother them in the least -- as long as they win. They have no conscience, remember?
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:49 PM
Mar 2015
 

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)
5. 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism (http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm):
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:37 AM
Mar 2015
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections





Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Electoral vote rigging ta...