Romney never had any remote chance to win

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Romney barely lost Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. All those states were close enough so that they could have gone either way. Sure the polls are pretty accurate, but they can often be off by a couple of percentage points. I'm not saying that Obama wasn't a solid favorite going into Tuesday. He was a solid favorite but his leads were very small in those 3 states and also in Colorado.

On a different subject, even though it didn't make the difference in this election, the winner take all rule of the Electoral college is absurd. For example, if Romney gets 10 million votes in Florida and Obama get 9.9 million votes there, why should Romney sweep all the electoral votes in that state? It is absurd.

rupert-

how a state assigns it's electors is up to each state. most have set up a winner take all system but both nebraska and maine have races in each congressional district for a single elector with the remaining 2 electors based on the statewide vote. romney targeted maine's 2nd district and Obama the district including omaha although neither made a big push and both went with the rest of the state for their opponent.

solid red and blue states aren't going to change the winner take all system because the party in charge doesn't want to up even 1 or 2 electors to the other side. and swing states get a lot less important if there isn't a large basket of electors to play for so they don't want to change.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

rupert-

how a state assigns it's electors is up to each state. most have set up a winner take all system but both nebraska and maine have races in each congressional district for a single elector with the remaining 2 electors based on the statewide vote. romney targeted maine's 2nd district and Obama the district including omaha although neither made a big push and both went with the rest of the state for their opponent.

solid red and blue states aren't going to change the winner take all system because the party in charge doesn't want to up even 1 or 2 electors to the other side. and swing states get a lot less important if there isn't a large basket of electors to play for so they don't want to change.

I don't think the winner take all rule is fair. If the election ended up coming down to Florida, and the democrat won Florida by 10,000 votes, that would mean that if 12,000 republicans from California moved to Florida and voted there, then the republican would win the election. That makes no sense. A person's vote should count equally, no matter what state they are voting from.

The present system is completely ridiculous. Think about how absurd this is. Republicans know that their vote doesn't count in California. So if a group of 1 million republicans in California got organized and decided that 3 groups of 300,000 would become residents of Virginia, Florida, and Ohio, and give up their status as California residents, then Romney would win the election. How ridiculous is that? It make no sense. Their votes have no value in California but would have tremendous value in other states. It shouldn't be like that. One votes should count as one vote, no matter where you live.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

rupert-

how a state assigns it's electors is up to each state. most have set up a winner take all system but both nebraska and maine have races in each congressional district for a single elector with the remaining 2 electors based on the statewide vote. romney targeted maine's 2nd district and Obama the district including omaha although neither made a big push and both went with the rest of the state for their opponent.

solid red and blue states aren't going to change the winner take all system because the party in charge doesn't want to up even 1 or 2 electors to the other side. and swing states get a lot less important if there isn't a large basket of electors to play for so they don't want to change.

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/20...reat-idea.html

the link is to an excellent explanation of why the electoral college is a good thing.

it seems every four years, the loser and his supporters rail at the electoral college as being some sinister creation. it's not. of course, when a republican wins the presidency (and it'll happen, not too many years ago the demise of the democratic party was projected to come any day-and look at them now) than the dems will have their turn to bash the system.
it's a good system, it works. read the article and you will see why i have asserted, and will continue to assert that the electoral college is the best way to elect our nations leader.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/20...reat-idea.html

the link is to an excellent explanation of why the electoral college is a good thing.

it seems every four years, the loser and his supporters rail at the electoral college as being some sinister creation. it's not. of course, when a republican wins the presidency (and it'll happen, not too many years ago the demise of the democratic party was projected to come any day-and look at them now) than the dems will have their turn to bash the system.
it's a good system, it works. read the article and you will see why i have asserted, and will continue to assert that the electoral college is the best way to elect our nations leader.

i'm at work so will read the link later but even before i do, you're preaching to the choir.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm at work so will read the link later but even before i do, you're preaching to the choir.

i just think the critics of the electoral college just really don't know how it works, or why it was ever begun. smaller, less populated states wanted to have their voices equally heard-tyranny of the majority and all that. i'm hoping those who say 'get rid of it' will read the article and perhaps get a better understanding.
or maybe i'm just in a fantasyland mood today.