Maybe. It kind of ignores some numbers but maybe. I wouldn't bet that is how it plays out, and the RNC wouldn't either, but anything is possible. I know there needs to be come radical changes in something because we are headed down a very dark path. I don't think either party, or any of the "others", have a great idea to balance out the concepts of the democracy and capitalism. You can only fool people with a sales pitch on a wonderful future for so long.
The biggest down side to this is for the one person one vote to work nation wide, all states would have to have the same rules regulating the election. Probably require a Constitutional Amendment to set the rules or states would be taking other states to court and nine people in robes would decide the rules.
I think thats a required qualification anymore.
Assuming you are correct, they could be doing this now, with our present system.
So, about 10% of the time, the electoral college awards the presidency to the person receiving fewer votes. It's interesting that the political right is continually looking for voter fraud, and seems ok with a system that actually installs the loser as the winner, one out of ten times, more or less.
Maybe Denver voters. She could be auditioning for a spot in the Harris-Cortez administration.
I’m thinking she wants to be Secretary of Interior (being from a western state like Montana) in the Ocasio-Cortez/El Sayed administration. Gotta pick up that swing state with a VP nod.
The difference is the only office where all states get a voice in is President. Having different rules between states when it came to the office of President would be like a state wide office where every county in the state had different rules. Wouldn't that be a can of worms. You simply can not have different rules in different places for the same office. The reason you can have different rules in different states now is the presidential election is fifty separate elections, not one big election.
that would be great!
The electoral college is a product of our federalist system of government in which sovereignty was envisioned to be shared between the states and a central government. It was designed so that candidates from Philadelphia, Boston, or NY couldn't win the presidency simply by running up the score in the big cities in which they live. It forced candidates to speak to the issues important to voters all over the country, not just the major metropolitan areas. Doing away with it today would mean the candidates spend 100% of their time talking about the issues important to the folks in NY, Chicago, LA, etc., many of which are completely irrelevant and/or impractical to life in the rest of the country. The electoral college at least forces them to give lip service to fly-over country once in a while.
Agreed. But when they came up with the idea 95% of Americans were rural. Today what is that number, 20%? The result has been the minority rules the majority.
Half this thread is complaints about the two party system. This is what happens when a legit third party candidate jumps in. Best best is to implement a system with run offs. That way you at least get a person in office that got 50.1% of the vote at some point.
Notwithstanding the uphill political battle to implement a run-off system, I would also wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze. So few people vote in primaries to begin with, and with a state as geographically large yet population small as MT, the logistics might be insurmountable. Not saying I disagree, just wondering how to address that angle.
