I like him/her.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

While I can certainly appreciate enthusiasm, this reeks of paid lobbying.

Unless there's another reason for someone from Concord California to join a Sabres forum and puke all that in a politics thread.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

yeah...I just did a bit of googling and all that was copy / paste.

Good work champ.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

sigh

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

The fact that the poster referenced the same site for all of the material tipped me off. Nonetheless, it was a good read.

_________________

Yeah I figured it was someone googling political keywords that came across this thread.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I'd be interested to find out if it was just some guy, or a paid individual. My guess is some guy, in which case, I'd really like for him/her to continue posting, even if it's only in the politics thread.

_________________

this might be late...but the electoral college was created so the entire populace was happy they got to vote when really they didn't.

rich, educated, white males wanted control of the vote so the uneducated population didn't control the fate of the nation.

plus your rationale is what happens now...all the people running for office only visit the large urban areas anyways. we've had a handful of people visit buffalo or rochester, but almost everyone goes to NYC, if at all. democrats put NY in their pocket and visit on the back burner.

Well, it's more like they focus on swing states, not cities.

No matter what you do, politicians are only going to spend money where they have to. Ignoring traditional strongholds isn't going to change under any system.

population centers in those states are still the visiting points. they don't visit oswego, morrisville, geneseo, rarely ithaca or binghamton.... if there isn't a large population center, they're not stopping.

That's true in NY, but look at tradidional swing states like Ohio and Florida. They'll go all over the place in those states, well outside the main cities.

my gut tells me otherwise, but i don't have any data so i will believe you.

While $89,538,628 (10.52% of total national donations) was given by New York state residents for the 2008 presidential election, only $2,235 (0 % of total peak season advertising expenditures) was spent by the campaigns in New York.

There were no campaign events - urban, suburban, ex-urban, or rural - in New York state in the 2008 post-convention presidential campaign.

Campaign Events between September 5 and November 4, 2008*

Rank State Events % of total Cumulative %
1 OH 62 20.7 20.7
2 FL 46 15.3 36.0
3 PA 40 13.3 49.3
4 VA 23 7.7 57.0
5 MO 21 7.0 64.0
6 CO 20 6.7 70.7
7 NC 15 5.0 75.7
8 NV 12 4.0 79.7
9 NH 12 4.0 83.7
10 MI 10 3.3 87.0
11 IN 9 3.0 90.0
12 NM 8 2.7 92.7
13 WI 8 2.7 95.3
14 IA 7 2.3 97.7
15 MN 2 0.7 98.3
16 ME 2 0.7 99.0
17 DC 1 0.3 99.3
18 TN 1 0.3 99.7
19 WV 1 0.3 100.0
Total 300 100

* Source: Washington Post

http://archive.fairvote.org/tracker/?pa ... rticle=230

Got bored and really looked into this. It's bogus.

Let's use 2004 as an example.

Maine 330,201 Bush 396,842 Kerry

Under this plan, the electoral votes for Maine would go to Bush, because Bush had more nationwide votes than Kerry, even though Kerry won the state.

This plan tells the people of smaller states that your vote DOESN'T MATTER. The citizens of Maine decided that they wanted their electoral votes to go to Kerry. However, since more people voted in OTHER states, the people of Maine are told 'Sorry for your luck'.

It's a load of bull.

I think you're right Squanto. Almost all 'motivations' are political. I'm sure that the dissolution of the EC would benefit one side more at this point that the other, and will therefore be pushed by them. This is the case in Wisconsin, but it's veiled as a 'cost cutting' effort. Simply put, the repubs want to break the unions which the dems use as political power. I don't trust any fucking one of them. In fact, if I had to trust any political affiliation to do the will of its constituents, I'd have have to go with the tea party(as sad as that is, because it's unrealistic/ineffective reaganomics all over again).

Well, it's not even the dissolution of the EC. That would require a Constitutional amendment.

They want to have every state change how electors are required to vote. The majority of states say that all electors must vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. (Some states have split electors, where the electors are assigned by district.) 26 states have laws that punish an elector who votes in a manner other than what state law says.

They're basically trying to get states to collude amongst themselves to decide how their electors will be assigned. This flies in the fact of a core conservative principle of state's rights. They want to people of Mane to basically give up their voice in an election because more people in Texas voted a certain way.

This will never fly.