6% of voters in 6 swing states will decide the election.
So, if you live in one of the 44 other states, your vote doesn't matter. And even if you live in one of the 6 states up for grab, unless you're one of the 6% undecided, your vote is baked in.
This doesn't feel like a representative Republic, nor a "democracy".
Link: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/06/biden-trump-election-swing-states
Replies to: 6% of voters in 6 swing states will decide the election.
Switch it to popular vote then. GOP would lose every election.
(no message)
.
(no message)
If anyone would consider voting for Biden,
they must be as. nuts as he is, the country is falling apart
Crime is rampant, inflation rages, open borders
Sales people call this the illusion of choice. Would it be so bad to split in 2?
It seems like there are 2 fundamental views of the U.S., and people should be able to live in the country they want.
So what? On theory our election could be decided by 1 vote out of 224 mil vote.That's the consquence
if you use popular voting as the only mean to decide president. Said many times I dislike this old hat by Greeks which i think only applies to local level similar to Greek's city-state society, not effective at national level of a big country.
Time to get rid of the electoral college?
The 2016 and 2020 elections were also determined by a narrow margin of voters.
2024 will be the same.
We can trust the numbers only if Trump wins. Otherwise, marginal mathematical swings = “Democrats cheated.”
not "marginal mathematical swings".
stopping the vote counting when it became apparent the votes weren't going a certain way, then suddenly showing up overnight with truckloads of "mail-in" ballots with no means of verification or validation - that creates the "illusion" of cheating.
having more votes in some precincts than the population is very suspect and creates the "illusion" of cheating.
bringing in millions of illegals with the full intent of giving them the vote creates the "illusion" of cheating.
trying to jail political opponents or getting them removed from the ballot (whitmer): that creates the "illusion" of cheating.
those are just a few of the "illusions" the liberals force on real people.
People who enjoy the cities enjoy the cities and get the benefits and downsides, people that live in
the suburbs and rural areas enjoy and prefer that lifestyle and neither should be punished because certain lifestyles deserve as much power of the vote as people who live in city area. It is not practical or fair to allocate it on a one person one votes basis when area of the country and preference in lifestyle have to be a consideration which our forefathers were bright enough to see.
Why are people who llve in urban areas less worthy to determine who should be our President?
Wouldn’t it be better for a Presidential candidate to engage with voters in all demographic segments of the nation? In all 50 states?
Your popular vote theory would take every one but those in major cities out of any hope for
fairness in our country or more than one view to be effective in how this country's fate is determined.
that's exactly what the electoral college does - it gives everyone a voice.
(no message)
Please respect that we're a federal country, not a unitary country. This is the foundation
of USA. Without it we wouldn't be a country at all. What does a federal country mean? It means the power is shared equally by states, not by the individual person. For example, people of Montana state, even less populated, have equal power as people of California, i.e. 2 seats in senate. Electoral college is mechanism that supports USA as a federal country.
Yet the candidate you support rejected that notion in 2020, and still does.
Consistent with the pending indictment against him, Trump endeavored to use his executive powers to orchestrate an undoing of the electoral verdict by the states.
so help me out here, please, counsellor.
"pending" means nothing has been filed.
"indictment" means at this point, it would still be nothing more than an accusation.
therefore, no charges of any kind have actually been brought, no evidence has been presented, no witnesses have been browbeaten into submission.
the way i understand the legal system, at this point, trump is not only not guilty of anything, he hasn't even been officially charged.
there's been no "insurrection" except in the minds and policies of the liberal left, its media propaganda arm, the weaponized legal system, and the dnc.
unless, of course, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" only applies at the leisure of the ruling party.
so, as a defense lawyer, help me out here. how can all of you treat this situation as already adjudicated. i have a hard time understanding the "law" sometimes.
thanks in advance.
My reply to Eli is not based upon a BRD criminal standard. We know the facts.
The January 6th Subcommittee’s findings reflect that then President Trump endeavored to subvert the electoral count.
Don’t play stupid.
the jan 6 subcommittee has as much credibility as
the new york judge (who even you have to admit should have recused himself) and jury.
zero. it was a political hack job intended to remove a legitimate challenge to the destruction of the country. even your good friend, nancy pelosi, admitted she did not do her job relative to the january 6 situation. if she had, this would all be moot.
People forget that our federal government is limited to enumerated powers granted by the states
The Electoral College protects the minority from tyranny by the majority. Federalism is a bedrock principle of our form of government.
Okay….agree. But don’t bitch then when a few swing states decide the election like the OP is.
(no message)
Disallow voting in urban areas of more than 1 million.
They are dependent sinkholes anyways. Let the intelligent people make the decisions.
Many of them are intelligent but just lack basic common sense. Our forefathers were brilliant in
what it took to make a republic with the use of the electoral college which turned out to be the best country by far, in the world. I t would be beautiful if clusters of people were allowed one vote for say every 100 or if a larger or small number were more fair that number. A one vote for one person would absolutely be the worst for our republic and what was intended by our founding fathers.
Urban votes shall be counted as 3/5ths as a compromise.
(no message)
Somewhat generous. Why not 4/9'ths? We know they don't understand fractions.
(no message)
That does sound like more, heh.
(no message)
My solution is more choices.
(no message)