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 Fakshon
Mods. if this is in the wrong section please move.
...
Furthermore, if this happens it could be a landslide for Romney just because of a natural disaster. Now don't get me wrong, I unequivocally do not want Romney to win and honestly I don't want Obama to win either. But hell lets face it we need a President and someone's going to win.
...
Originally posted by Fakshon
Mods. if this is in the wrong section please move.
Not to sound like a cold heart SOB. Forgive me if you take this wrong.
But I was wondering how or if Hurricane Sandy might affect the election. So far the damage is in the Northeast which is usually Democratic. However, when you view the breakdown of the state maps and their voting records by county you see that the majority of the states counties are primarily republican and the majority of the Democratic sway is in the larger cities/areas which cause the state to be democrat.
Moreover, if the majority of damage and destruction is in the major cities/areas that might sway the election.
How?
If you view the issue in plain terms, what is more important your life or a vote the overwhelming response will be a unanimous life vote. So if this is true wouldn't the vote count from the counties that were least affected outweigh the vote of the larger city/areas?
Furthermore, if this happens it could be a landslide for Romney just because of a natural disaster. Now don't get me wrong, I unequivocally do not want Romney to win and honestly I don't want Obama to win either. But hell lets face it we need a President and someone's going to win.
So I wonder how is it fair to allow the election to happen so soon after a disaster that affects not a town, city, or even one state but a good portion of our nation. Would you agree that this disaster is so large that it might actually call for an extension on election day?
Be you Republican/Democratic/Libertarian/Green Party/or Undecided you must admit that it isn't fair to make someone choose between life and a vote.
(This is something I just thought of and researched real fast, if any of you research gurus out there want to bust out the mad skills please drop some knowledge.)
Originally posted by Fakshon
does this mean the electoral college is a flawed system?
The result of this system is that in this election
the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector [sent by the state] represented 70,000 votes,
while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate.
Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states./ex]
www.historycentral.com...
Because it is easier than para-phrasing
One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states.
www.historycentral.com...
Sidenote: Nate Silvers predicts there is about an 8% chance that one candidate will win the popular vote while the other wins the electoral college....and a .2 (point 2) percent chance that they will tie.