Prickly City by Scott Stantis

Prickly City

Recommended

Comments (9) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith said, 7 months ago

    How’s their football team doing this year?

  2. dapperdan61

    dapperdan61 said, 7 months ago

    I just saw a news report that says Romney may actually win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral college. Sounds like a repeat of 2000 but with a Democrat winning the election. I personally want to see the electoral college abolished since the battleground states get all the attention.

  3. Joseph DeSouza

    Joseph DeSouza said, 7 months ago

    @dapperdan61

    Going to a Popular Vote disproportionately mis-represents the low-population states. It would also mean that all campaigning would only take place in the big population centers…simply shifts from battle-ground states to battle-ground population centers.

  4. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 7 months ago

    The original point of the Electoral College was as a buffer between the the voting public and the elites. The electors were the ones who voted for the president. But that changed so we have two competing groups. Electors and population.

  5. BillWa

    BillWa said, 7 months ago

    @dapperdan61

    The electoral college serves the purpose of allowing the smaller states a voice in the election, otherwise it would just be four or five states that are involved.

  6. KPOM

    KPOM said, 7 months ago

    @ScottPM

    The Maine/Nebraska solution just exacerbates the problem of gerrymandering. Nebraska gerrymandered the Omaha district this time to prevent what happened last time.

    What might be better is proportional distribution of each state’s electoral votes with the “bonus” senate vote going to the winner of the state.

  7. KPOM

    KPOM said, 7 months ago

    Small states are better off keeping the winner-take-all system of electoral college vote allocation. Large states like California, Texas, New York,, and Illinois would be better off switching to a proportional system. That way they would get national attention. Instead, GOP candidates ignore California, New York, and Illinois since they have nothing to gain. Likewise, Democrats ignore Texas since they have nothing to gain.

  8. KPOM

    KPOM said, 7 months ago

    @Paul Smith

    They gave up 12 4th quarter points to lose a close one. :-(

  9. Tigger

    Tigger said, 7 months ago

    @dapperdan61

    If the EC is abolished, then only the most Populous Cites will see Presidential Candidates.
    The EC gives all cities an equal say.
    What we need to do is change the EC from Winner of State Takes all. If a candidate wins a State by less than 60% of the votes, they get only a percentage of the Electors for that State, this would be more fair.

    You also know that Obama could win the Popular Vote and Romney wins the EC? This would be the repeat of 2000.

  10. Refresh Comments.