[#1YoungDawg]

I am sick of people telling me that my vote counts. I am thinking about not voting next time because I don't see the point. If you live in Kentucky you know it will go Republican by a landslide. Then Kentucky only has so many electoral college points. Can someone explain to me in a way that makes any sense why some states have more points then others. They need to either just count up all the votes nation wide and the man that gets the most Americans to vote for him wins or they need to give all the states the same amount of points. This system to me is unfair.:lame:

[TheRealVille]

I am sick of people telling me that my vote counts. I am thinking about not voting next time because I don't see the point. If you live in Kentucky you know it will go Republican by a landslide. Then Kentucky only has so many electoral college points. Can someone explain to me in a way that makes any sense why some states have more points then others. They need to either just count up all the votes nation wide and the man that gets the most Americans to vote for him wins or they need to give all the states the same amount of points. This system to me is unfair.:lame:

Short answer, population.

[tvtimeout]

I am sick of people telling me that my vote counts. I am thinking about not voting next time because I don't see the point. If you live in Kentucky you know it will go Republican by a landslide. Then Kentucky only has so many electoral college points. Can someone explain to me in a way that makes any sense why some states have more points then others. They need to either just count up all the votes nation wide and the man that gets the most Americans to vote for him wins or they need to give all the states the same amount of points. This system to me is unfair.:lame:

The electorial college is based upon the number of senators and congressmen/women that each state has.

Congressmen and women are determined by the census every ten years based upon population.

Each state does start off with 2 "points" because the each state has 2 senators. That was a compromise between small states and large states.

Do you think Kentucky should have as many "points" as California?

[Granny Bear]

Each state has electors equal to the Congressional representation in both houses that cast their number of votes for the winner of the popular vote in their states. It is not governed by the popular vote, as proven by Al Gore. So, in theory as well as reality, it is possible to receive more popular vote, but lose in the electoral vote.

[TheRealVille]

Each state has electors equal to the Congressional representation in both houses that cast their number of votes for the winner of the popular vote in their states. It is not governed by the popular vote, as proven by Al Gore. So, in theory as well as reality, it is possible to receive more popular vote, but lose in the electoral vote.

Which is relative to the population of that state.

[Granny Bear]

^^
Relative, yes. But even then, and I may be misunderstanding the process, the elector is NOT required to go by popular vote. They can cast their electoral votes for whomever they decide. It's never happened before, and don't think it ever will. But if it ever did, can you imagine the storm????

[LWC]

There are at least three times that the popularly elected candidate loses the Electoral College ballot.

I like the Electoral college system BUT I believe it needs to be tweaked to have something like Maine and Nebraska have. What happens is 8-9 States get pandered to and the rest are left to themselves. If the votes were split in states, then candidates would have to campaign much harder and much more strategically.

Think about this, California and New York ALWAYS seem to go blue. That is 84 Electoral votes automatically to the Democratic candidate. Texas and Georgia usually seem to go Republican and they amount to about 50 votes. Candidates rarely ever campaign in those states because they know how it will turn out.

[the other guy]

There are at least three times that the popularly elected candidate loses the Electoral College ballot.

I like the Electoral college system BUT I believe it needs to be tweaked to have something like Maine and Nebraska have. What happens is 8-9 States get pandered to and the rest are left to themselves. If the votes were split in states, then candidates would have to campaign much harder and much more strategically.

Think about this, California and New York ALWAYS seem to go blue. That is 84 Electoral votes automatically to the Democratic candidate. Texas and Georgia usually seem to go Republican and they amount to about 50 votes. Candidates rarely ever campaign in those states because they know how it will turn out.

I also like the Maine system. But it has become urban vs rural. Obama didn't win Ohio he won Cleveland,Arkon , Teledo etc.

And how would you like to be a person living in the hills of northern California neither party gives a crap about them.

The biggest thing which takes any power Kentucky might have is the primary system. The early states pick the nominee long before we ever vote.