Linked by Howard Fosdick on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541844
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2012-06-22
No they wouldn't and that is why the electoral college exists.
If the system was a popular vote or perfectly proportionate to population then the candidates would focus their time in Metropolitan areas.
It's not a perfect system and no one has ever claimed it to be. But a direct vote would lead to a Metropolitan coast focus with the exception of Texas.
I would rather not have LA and NYC have heavy influence in choosing a candidate for the rest of the country. I would much prefer it coming down to swing states where there is more diversity of opinion and a better reflection of the entire county.