Why don't they give a % of the votes based on the percent of the popular vote in the state?

For example, if one state is worth 10 votes, and 60% of the people vote for one guy, and 40 for the other.......why don't they give 6 votes to one guy, and 4 to the other?

Why is it an all or nothing?

Cuz thats just the way it is.....

freakin canadians

but why?

Wouldn't it make more sence the other way? That way, your vote might actually mean something Kaps. The Republicans aren't gonna win california for the next 100 years

FAIR! FAIR!!!

Have you ever been to america?

I did too many sit ups tonight

Originally posted by VulgarTheClown
FAIR! FAIR!!!

Have you ever been to america?

Yeah, what was I thinking? Nothing is fair in america, just look at the justice system

Our system is just as ****ed. Liberals get 33 percent of the vote but 66 percent of the seat, conservatives get 28 percent of the vote but only 6 percent of the seats

Originally posted by HockeyFighter
Our system is just as ****ed. Liberals get 33 percent of the vote but 66 percent of the seat, conservatives get 28 percent of the vote but only 6 percent of the seats

but its based on seats. So its a little different. You control who repersents you.

I do agree though, our system is flawed also. However, I can't recall a time where the party getting the most votes didn't win

where are the rest of the seats?

i got a pain right below my belt line

Originally posted by VulgarTheClown
where are the rest of the seats?
Various other parties. Liberals are the largest, then the Alliance which is the most right wing, the the PQ which represents Quebec only, then the conservatives and the NDP at the bottom of the ladder.

I always find it funny how the Conservative party had about 170 seats (one of the largest majorities in history) in 1993 but then collapsed to 2 seats in 1997. Gotta be one of the greatest downfalls of a government ever. Now they have 20....I guess that is better than 2.

It feels better if I rub it

Canada's system was designed to avoid situations like you have in Europe where they never have a majority government and need elections every 3 months. The single member plurality vote creates artifical majorities for the purpose of government stability even though said government may have only 30 percent of the total vote share as with the case for the liberal party.

god you are smart HF.....If I was a girl I would let you have me

um

Anyway, my question still stands.

How come the electoral college isn't based on a percent of the total votes in said sate?

because it is a majority of the state, so the majority gets all the votes, and since the votes are based on population of the state and all that, that is why Cali will never get a repub. Its like a 50 little majority elections calculated into one big one.

hockey wrote:I always find it funny how the Conservative party had about 170 seats (one of the largest majorities in history) in 1993 but then collapsed to 2 seats in 1997. Gotta be one of the greatest downfalls of a government ever


that had alot to do with the republican party spending 50 million to find out Clinton got a blow job.

when millions of strongly worded letters came to washington asking not to waste the taxpayers money, kennith star and his goon squad continued on anyway.

do you think the voice of the people should be blatently ignored? ( this question is not directed at you )

that must of pissed people of.

Originally posted by Curly Howard
god you are smart HF.....If I was a girl I would let you have me

If you were a girl, he wouldn't want you. Your just gonna have to learn to be gay...or gayer.

ooooooooooooooook

Originally posted by Blue Bulldogge
If you were a girl, he wouldn't want you. Your just gonna have to learn to be gay...or gayer.

IF I was a girl I would be gay.