It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by graphuto
Can someone explain why the entire electorate for each state votes their color, regardless of how many precincts within that state voted opposite?
Example: Texas has 38 electoral votes. Obama had 40% of the votes, and Romney had 58% of the votes. Shouldn't 15 of the electoral votes goto Obama, and 22 go to Romney?
Example: California has 55 electoral votes. 54% voted for Obama and 44% voted for Romney. Shouldn't Obama get 30 of the electoral votes and 22 for Romney?
I'd love an actual explanation to this, the reasons it's done this way, and the reasoning behind why what I suggested isn't logical.
Originally posted by graphuto
Can someone explain why the entire electorate for each state votes their color, regardless of how many precincts within that state voted opposite?
Example: Texas has 38 electoral votes. Obama had 40% of the votes, and Romney had 58% of the votes. Shouldn't 15 of the electoral votes goto Obama, and 22 go to Romney?
Example: California has 55 electoral votes. 54% voted for Obama and 44% voted for Romney. Shouldn't Obama get 30 of the electoral votes and 22 for Romney?
I'd love an actual explanation to this, the reasons it's done this way, and the reasoning behind why what I suggested isn't logical.
Originally posted by graphuto
Can someone explain why the entire electorate for each state votes their color, regardless of how many precincts within that state voted opposite?
The Electoral Vote could change the outcome of this election. They do not vote until December. That can change everything and put Romney in the White House.
Originally posted by graphuto
So how does one go about starting to try and push through legislation to mandate the process to go as a proportional weighted system doling out votes proportionately?