3659 pts ยท April 28, 2011
I was thinking different length legs
I assume she has two different leg lengths. The boot has heels the sneaker doesn't (or only a slight lift).
Yup. Still using influence to block Russia's proposed pipelines. Syria is Russia's last chance which is why they are taking such a stance.
*Orangutan
The president should represent the majority of people in the fairest way possible. This, IMO, is accomplished with IRV.
In America, the Senate provides the necessary balance for the states. 2 Cali = 2 Wyoming. Very lopsided but very state balanced.
I have in no way made mention of ANY candidate. I'm purely discussing the merits of a voting system. Electoral college is seriously flawed.
There are still far more rural districts than urban nationwide. This gives a heavy advantage in a nationwide election.
Yep. Some anti-Trump ppl protest a Trump getting in legally. Some anti-Hillary ppl will cry "Civil War" if Hillary gets in legally. Sad.
Oh well, those are the rules. ;)
Not pro rioting, but if the electors elect Clinton on Dec 19, I highly doubt Trump supporters will say, "Oh well, those are the rules."
Replace WTA and FPTP with IRV and/or single transferable voting and now we have a "fair" government and mostly represented populace.
I'm for changing WTA, but not if it looks like NE or ME. If this were adopted nationwide, rural areas would be even more heavily favored.
Yes they do. And if their system was adopted nationwide, it heavily favors rural areas.
Supermajority didn't even last 1 year.
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) died in Obama's first 8 months. Before the ACA went up for vote in the Senate. That seat was filled by Scott Brown (R).
Gotchya.. so far, that's not typically how states have decided to do it, but don't think that's far off from a popular vote outcome.
Abolish electoral college. Switch FPTP to IRV.. problem solved.
It does in split electoral states. See Nebraska.
fairer with and the result is less polarizing candidates. 4/4
the presidential outcome. President should represent the majority of the people. However, replace FPTP with IRV and it becomes much 3/?
abolished, not split. The Senate give balance to the concern of unequal representation of rural communities. Population should control 2/?
I wholeheartedly agree with changing FPTP.. that is different from switching WTA to split electoral votes. Electoral college should be 1/?
62+247=309 electoral votes to GOP. Not exactly the 47% of the pop that actually voted GOP. Heavily favors rural areas. 4/4
538-435=103 remaining. Split those by popular vote by state. 30 states voted GOP. Not perfect math here but 60% is around 62 votes. 3/?
votes going to the popular vote in that state. We currently have 435 congressional districts. 247 of those are represented by GOP. 2/?
Split electoral votes are usually awarded to winner of the popular vote in congressional districts, with whatever remaining electoral 1/?
If we split up districts like Maine or Nebraska it becomes even more lopsided in favor of rural areas and encourages gerrymandering
If we split up districts like Maine or Nebraska it becomes even more lopsided in favor of rural areas and encourage gerrymandering
I begged and pleaded with her day after day But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way. #extendedversionbitch
I was thinking different length legs
I assume she has two different leg lengths. The boot has heels the sneaker doesn't (or only a slight lift).
Yup. Still using influence to block Russia's proposed pipelines. Syria is Russia's last chance which is why they are taking such a stance.
*Orangutan
The president should represent the majority of people in the fairest way possible. This, IMO, is accomplished with IRV.
In America, the Senate provides the necessary balance for the states. 2 Cali = 2 Wyoming. Very lopsided but very state balanced.
I have in no way made mention of ANY candidate. I'm purely discussing the merits of a voting system. Electoral college is seriously flawed.
There are still far more rural districts than urban nationwide. This gives a heavy advantage in a nationwide election.
Yep. Some anti-Trump ppl protest a Trump getting in legally. Some anti-Hillary ppl will cry "Civil War" if Hillary gets in legally. Sad.
Oh well, those are the rules. ;)
Not pro rioting, but if the electors elect Clinton on Dec 19, I highly doubt Trump supporters will say, "Oh well, those are the rules."
Replace WTA and FPTP with IRV and/or single transferable voting and now we have a "fair" government and mostly represented populace.
I'm for changing WTA, but not if it looks like NE or ME. If this were adopted nationwide, rural areas would be even more heavily favored.
Yes they do. And if their system was adopted nationwide, it heavily favors rural areas.
Supermajority didn't even last 1 year.
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) died in Obama's first 8 months. Before the ACA went up for vote in the Senate. That seat was filled by Scott Brown (R).
Gotchya.. so far, that's not typically how states have decided to do it, but don't think that's far off from a popular vote outcome.
Abolish electoral college. Switch FPTP to IRV.. problem solved.
It does in split electoral states. See Nebraska.
fairer with and the result is less polarizing candidates. 4/4
the presidential outcome. President should represent the majority of the people. However, replace FPTP with IRV and it becomes much 3/?
abolished, not split. The Senate give balance to the concern of unequal representation of rural communities. Population should control 2/?
I wholeheartedly agree with changing FPTP.. that is different from switching WTA to split electoral votes. Electoral college should be 1/?
62+247=309 electoral votes to GOP. Not exactly the 47% of the pop that actually voted GOP. Heavily favors rural areas. 4/4
538-435=103 remaining. Split those by popular vote by state. 30 states voted GOP. Not perfect math here but 60% is around 62 votes. 3/?
votes going to the popular vote in that state. We currently have 435 congressional districts. 247 of those are represented by GOP. 2/?
Split electoral votes are usually awarded to winner of the popular vote in congressional districts, with whatever remaining electoral 1/?
If we split up districts like Maine or Nebraska it becomes even more lopsided in favor of rural areas and encourages gerrymandering
If we split up districts like Maine or Nebraska it becomes even more lopsided in favor of rural areas and encourage gerrymandering
I begged and pleaded with her day after day But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way. #extendedversionbitch