Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Xantalos]

Apparently someone on YouTube blamed Tim Burton for high divorce rates.

[misko27]

Apparently someone on YouTube blamed Tim Burton for high divorce rates.

Then I demand credit for all bacon related physical injuries. No diabetes mind you, just good old fashioned bacon crushing limbs action.

[SomeStupidGuy]

Apparently someone on YouTube blamed Tim Burton for high divorce rates.

So, how does that work? Is just he going around marrying then divorcing himself to folks for the sole purpose of increasing divorce rates. Because if that's not how he's doing it then I'll be pretty disappointed.

[scriver]

They see Helena Bonham Carter and realise their whole marriage is a lie. Yes, regardless of gender.

[10ebbor10]

People. PEOPLE/ The Electoral college isn't that complex.

Let me break it down.
Instead of the Country itself being a single "unit" which I will now refer to as Elects. In this system every vote woud be fighting to over turn the entire elect which represents a country.
In our system, your fighting to wina much smalled elect, a county. If a majority of counties win a state, the larger elect is turned, which, in turn, fights to overturn another elect, the country, This is a little lopsided here, because the electoral college clances by population, so thode island has fewer votes then New York.

Now, regarding being able to lose the popular vote but win the election. It is a matter of elects, again. Every signle elect is worth the same, the bare minimun. Thats why they all have the same number of voters. But picture this, a county that is 100% Democrat, and a county that is 51% democrat, have the exact equal number of votes. You can see where I'm going here. All you need is the minumum you need to win, and force the opponent into wining places it was obvious he'd win. In Extreme circumstances, this may decide elections.

In extreme situations, you can win having only about 21% of the votes. Besides, the fact that county part of the election uses a first past the vote system encourages a two party system, which America has today. (2 party systems are not good, FYI)

[Hanslanda]

People. PEOPLE/ The Electoral college isn't that complex.

Let me break it down.
Instead of the Country itself being a single "unit" which I will now refer to as Elects. In this system every vote woud be fighting to over turn the entire elect which represents a country.
In our system, your fighting to wina much smalled elect, a county. If a majority of counties win a state, the larger elect is turned, which, in turn, fights to overturn another elect, the country, This is a little lopsided here, because the electoral college clances by population, so thode island has fewer votes then New York.

Now, regarding being able to lose the popular vote but win the election. It is a matter of elects, again. Every signle elect is worth the same, the bare minimun. Thats why they all have the same number of voters. But picture this, a county that is 100% Democrat, and a county that is 51% democrat, have the exact equal number of votes. You can see where I'm going here. All you need is the minumum you need to win, and force the opponent into wining places it was obvious he'd win. In Extreme circumstances, this may decide elections.

In extreme situations, you can win having only about 21% of the votes. Besides, the fact that county part of the election uses a first past the vote system encourages a two party system, which America has today. (2 party systems are not good, FYI)

2 party systems end up forcing the country into two camps, both of which rapidly become ridiculously over the top and pretty much ineffective because the other party is always attempting to block anything the other does. So... go USA, huh. :/

[10ebbor10]

You get a system where people are not voting for X party, but against the other one. And when someone decides they don't like that system, and makes their own party to show their believes, it will steal votes from the party they have most similair with, causing the other party to win.

[MaximumZero]

People. PEOPLE/ The Electoral college isn't that complex.

Let me break it down.
Instead of the Country itself being a single "unit" which I will now refer to as Elects. In this system every vote woud be fighting to over turn the entire elect which represents a country.
In our system, your fighting to wina much smalled elect, a county. If a majority of counties win a state, the larger elect is turned, which, in turn, fights to overturn another elect, the country, This is a little lopsided here, because the electoral college clances by population, so thode island has fewer votes then New York.

Now, regarding being able to lose the popular vote but win the election. It is a matter of elects, again. Every signle elect is worth the same, the bare minimun. Thats why they all have the same number of voters. But picture this, a county that is 100% Democrat, and a county that is 51% democrat, have the exact equal number of votes. You can see where I'm going here. All you need is the minumum you need to win, and force the opponent into wining places it was obvious he'd win. In Extreme circumstances, this may decide elections.

In extreme situations, you can win having only about 21% of the votes. Besides, the fact that county part of the election uses a first past the vote system encourages a two party system, which America has today. (2 party systems are not good, FYI)

2 party systems end up forcing the country into two camps, both of which rapidly become ridiculously over the top and pretty much ineffective because the other party is always attempting to block anything the other does. So... go USA, huh. :/

And both parties still use the tired old line, "We're not a two party system! You can vote independent!"

[miauw62]

This explains electoral college pretty well. Yay for CGPgrey.

[Karnewarrior]

People. PEOPLE/ The Electoral college isn't that complex.

Let me break it down.
Instead of the Country itself being a single "unit" which I will now refer to as Elects. In this system every vote woud be fighting to over turn the entire elect which represents a country.
In our system, your fighting to wina much smalled elect, a county. If a majority of counties win a state, the larger elect is turned, which, in turn, fights to overturn another elect, the country, This is a little lopsided here, because the electoral college clances by population, so thode island has fewer votes then New York.

Now, regarding being able to lose the popular vote but win the election. It is a matter of elects, again. Every signle elect is worth the same, the bare minimun. Thats why they all have the same number of voters. But picture this, a county that is 100% Democrat, and a county that is 51% democrat, have the exact equal number of votes. You can see where I'm going here. All you need is the minumum you need to win, and force the opponent into wining places it was obvious he'd win. In Extreme circumstances, this may decide elections.

In extreme situations, you can win having only about 21% of the votes. Besides, the fact that county part of the election uses a first past the vote system encourages a two party system, which America has today. (2 party systems are not good, FYI)

2 party systems end up forcing the country into two camps, both of which rapidly become ridiculously over the top and pretty much ineffective because the other party is always attempting to block anything the other does. So... go USA, huh. :/

And both parties still use the tired old line, "We're not a two party system! You can vote independent!"

I am independent.

The Republicans have no brain and the Democrats have no spine.

[MaximumZero]

People. PEOPLE/ The Electoral college isn't that complex.

Let me break it down.
Instead of the Country itself being a single "unit" which I will now refer to as Elects. In this system every vote woud be fighting to over turn the entire elect which represents a country.
In our system, your fighting to wina much smalled elect, a county. If a majority of counties win a state, the larger elect is turned, which, in turn, fights to overturn another elect, the country, This is a little lopsided here, because the electoral college clances by population, so thode island has fewer votes then New York.

Now, regarding being able to lose the popular vote but win the election. It is a matter of elects, again. Every signle elect is worth the same, the bare minimun. Thats why they all have the same number of voters. But picture this, a county that is 100% Democrat, and a county that is 51% democrat, have the exact equal number of votes. You can see where I'm going here. All you need is the minumum you need to win, and force the opponent into wining places it was obvious he'd win. In Extreme circumstances, this may decide elections.

In extreme situations, you can win having only about 21% of the votes. Besides, the fact that county part of the election uses a first past the vote system encourages a two party system, which America has today. (2 party systems are not good, FYI)

2 party systems end up forcing the country into two camps, both of which rapidly become ridiculously over the top and pretty much ineffective because the other party is always attempting to block anything the other does. So... go USA, huh. :/

And both parties still use the tired old line, "We're not a two party system! You can vote independent!"

I am independent.

The Republicans have no brain and the Democrats have no spine.

And the Indies don't have enough pull to actually get into office. At best, you're playing spoiler.

[GoombaGeek]

We only have about two independents in federal government out of 300-odd ridings.

Still, though, they get an actual seat!

[10ebbor10]

We only have about two independents in federal government out of 300-odd ridings.

Still, though, they get an actual seat!

They managed to have an actual influence. I'm impressed.

[GoombaGeek]

The Green lady also made it in this time

[kaenneth]

Two party isn't the problem, winner-take-all is.

If a party representing 5% of the people could get 5% of the seats in congress, without those people all having to live in the same state...