SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (1575)1/11/2001 12:52:55 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
No - with direct popular vote you can win just by winning the big cities. This way you'd still have to win a majority of the 435 congressional districts, they just wouldn't have to be in the same states.

I think that's right. If I am wrong, explain it to me but I am going to sleep now so I will read it in the morning.



To: Don Lloyd who wrote (1575)1/11/2001 12:56:06 AM
From: CVJ  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
One of the points of an apportioned-by-district Electoral votes is that a large state's influence would be diminished. e.g., Calif has 54 electors (52 districts + 2 Senators). Instead of all 54 going to Gore, it may have been 36-Gore, 18-Bush. Some of states that Gore won narrowly would have still had some Bush Electors chosen instead of all for Gore.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News