Romney got how many votes, where?

dimitrispearljam

BinFrog wrote:

. Come up with meaningful suggestions as to what this country needs to do to succeed,
Do something positive and constructive for a change. \.

is he want or can do this things,he wouldnt support Romney in the first place..

seriously...there is no reason anymore to read or responce to this type of posters here..

there are great people that support Romney or are republicans in the forum that you can have a good conversation,debate,learn things,make you think..
OP is not one of them..

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

I would just prefer a different system is all because a President
can take office without the popular vote like in the Bush Gore race.

Then go write your Georgia state reps and governor and tell them to support National Popular Vote.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Thank you I will
Looks like both Rep and Dems are behind this :thumbup: far out

comebackgirl

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

I would just prefer a different system is all because a President
can take office without the popular vote like in the Bush Gore race.

By the way, this is a lot of sour grapes. Go to West Philly or North Philly and find me half a dozen Romney voters and I'll buy you a fancy steak dinner. Also Philly has very small precincts, some of them literally in somebody's garage, so Romney getting zero votes in some of them isn't as ridiculous as it seems. Hey, we don't have people waiting in line for 8 hours to vote!


One more thing, as others said, this is a substantial victory in the popular vote considering our country's idealogical divisions. Over a 3 million vote difference now.

Well that's just it...a lot of those precincts barely had any registered Republican voters at all...maybe 8 in total. When they sent reporters out to interview them, the ones they found stated they voted for Obama. It doesn't surprise me at all that Romney got 0% of the vote in those precincts.

MayDay10

I dont like the electoral system either.

These guys campaign in like 4 states for a year. Policies can be based on pandering to a few states out of 50.

I dont know what the answer is. If you toss out the EC, we will see campaigning concentrated in only the biggest cities.

I think maybe keep the electoral college, but allocate the votes based on the % in each corresponding state. So say California is 40 EC votes and Obama wins 75%, he gets 30, Romney gets 10. Maybe even run it off the a hundreth of an EC Vote.

I would also like to see things a little more 21st century as far as voting goes. I would like to see uniform, electronic voting systems throughout the country that can be counted very quickly and accurately.

Lastly, a President gets 1 6-year term and thats it.

pjhawks

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

I would just prefer a different system is all because a President
can take office without the popular vote like in the Bush Gore race.

Then go write your Georgia state reps and governor and tell them to support National Popular Vote.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

All the states that have adopted it are blue states, and now the red staters are bitching about the electoral college. :roll:


By the way, this is a lot of sour grapes. Go to West Philly or North Philly and find me half a dozen Romney voters and I'll buy you a fancy steak dinner. Also Philly has very small precincts, some of them literally in somebody's garage, so Romney getting zero votes in some of them isn't as ridiculous as it seems. Hey, we don't have people waiting in line for 8 hours to vote!


One more thing, as others said, this is a substantial victory in the popular vote considering our country's idealogical divisions. Over a 3 million vote difference now.

in some of those precincts in Philly where Romney got no votes there are ZERO registered republicans. as in none, no one, zilch. so yea not hard to understand that Mitt didn't get any votes there.

heard that the candidates only campaigned in 10 states this cycle. if you went by popular vote only they'd campaign in about 4 states and you'd only have to win about 4 or 5 states to win the election. I don't think the popular vote is the answer but i think tweaking the number of electoral votes per state is a better solution.

Johnny Abruzzo

pandora wrote:

Thank you I will
Looks like both Rep and Dems are behind this :thumbup: far out

Yeah, it ought to be a bipartisan thing, since deep red and deep blue states are equally harmed by the EC and can combine for 270 EV's to basically throw out the EC, but thus far it has only received support from blue states (I imagine this is a reaction to the Gore EC defeat, but it could have gone the other way in 2004 and maybe this year).

I've never understood the argument that the entire campaign would pander to big cities under a NPV system. There are people in big cities, people in suburbs, people in exurbs and people in rural areas. I don't think any one group would dominate the election.

JC29856

dont assume our elected officials want a democracy, of by and for the people! its all about control, take control from the masses and put it in the hands of a few.
carve up the districts, offer 1 alternative (or in boehners case none!), make it so 3 or 4 states determine the winner (ohio and florida) and give the electoral college overriding power.

voters = shareholders, powerless owners of the government and companies
electoral college = board of directors, decision makers

JimmyV

Chalk up one vote here in favor of the Electoral College as is. The system may not be perfect but it works far more often than it doesn't and it is the only reason some of the smaller states have a voice. No candidate would pay attention to the Montanas, Wyomings and Idahos if we were in a popular vote system. There simply aren't enough votes in these states to make it worth spending the resources to campaign there. And don't say that no one campaigns in those states now. No one campaigns there only because their outcomes are not currently in doubt. New Hampshire has only four electoral votes and was as hotly contested as Ohio or Florida. As soon as any small state shows a hint of turning purple candidates will flock to it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

not enough, and everywhere.

case closed.

gimmesometruth27

pandora wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

guess he does not have compassion for f4f....

:roll:

but you do

i was just saying that to keep this thread from getting turned into the same downward spiral as most threads when you bring up compassion.

pandora

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pandora wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

guess he does not have compassion for f4f....

:roll:

but you do

i was just saying that to keep this thread from getting turned into the same downward spiral as most threads when you bring up compassion.

I know its such a dirty word ...
heaven forbid people be more compassionate to each other. I think I heard your compassion
in another thread... moment of weakness?
No not at all it's all in the heart and brings understanding.

But remember you brought it up now and engaged :P

whygohome

JimmyV wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

Either this is fraud or deep racism!

Obama used Hispanics to win Virginia!

Getting Hispanic votes equals deep racism! :roll:

That's the Right's logic for ya!

whygohome

rude post removed by Admin

pandora

pjhawks wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

I would just prefer a different system is all because a President
can take office without the popular vote like in the Bush Gore race.

Then go write your Georgia state reps and governor and tell them to support National Popular Vote.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

All the states that have adopted it are blue states, and now the red staters are bitching about the electoral college. :roll:


By the way, this is a lot of sour grapes. Go to West Philly or North Philly and find me half a dozen Romney voters and I'll buy you a fancy steak dinner. Also Philly has very small precincts, some of them literally in somebody's garage, so Romney getting zero votes in some of them isn't as ridiculous as it seems. Hey, we don't have people waiting in line for 8 hours to vote!


One more thing, as others said, this is a substantial victory in the popular vote considering our country's idealogical divisions. Over a 3 million vote difference now.

in some of those precincts in Philly where Romney got no votes there are ZERO registered republicans. as in none, no one, zilch. so yea not hard to understand that Mitt didn't get any votes there.

heard that the candidates only campaigned in 10 states this cycle. if you went by popular vote only they'd campaign in about 4 states and you'd only have to win about 4 or 5 states to win the election. I don't think the popular vote is the answer but i think tweaking the number of electoral votes per state is a better solution.

Registered Rep key word registered hard to believe no one voted for Romney seems
too absolute for my suspicious mind.
I would be up for reform, a new plan for the electoral college that keeps people voting
even when they are in the state of a different color. The swing state thing
is annoying for me, kind of takes the fun out of it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.

pandora

JimmyV wrote:

Chalk up one vote here in favor of the Electoral College as is. The system may not be perfect but it works far more often than it doesn't and it is the only reason some of the smaller states have a voice. No candidate would pay attention to the Montanas, Wyomings and Idahos if we were in a popular vote system. There simply aren't enough votes in these states to make it worth spending the resources to campaign there. And don't say that no one campaigns in those states now. No one campaigns there only because their outcomes are not currently in doubt. New Hampshire has only four electoral votes and was as hotly contested as Ohio or Florida. As soon as any small state shows a hint of turning purple candidates will flock to it.

that's hopeful

Hugh Freaking Dillon

can someone explain to me why Ohio, which doesn't have the most electoral votes up for grabs, is consistently the make or break state for either candidate? shouldn't california be THE state?

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Thank you I will
Looks like both Rep and Dems are behind this :thumbup: far out

Yeah, it ought to be a bipartisan thing, since deep red and deep blue states are equally harmed by the EC and can combine for 270 EV's to basically throw out the EC, but thus far it has only received support from blue states (I imagine this is a reaction to the Gore EC defeat, but it could have gone the other way in 2004 and maybe this year).

I've never understood the argument that the entire campaign would pander to big cities under a NPV system. There are people in big cities, people in suburbs, people in exurbs and people in rural areas. I don't think any one group would dominate the election.

Got to wonder how things would have been different when you think back.
I'm with the thought of one term 6 years then new Pres. for no other reason
but to condense time and action, then rejuvenate.

pandora

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

can someone explain to me why Ohio, which doesn't have the most electoral votes up for grabs, is consistently the make or break state for either candidate? shouldn't california be THE state?

Isn't it the amount of Independents/ switch hitters? I didn't google though.

JimmyV

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.

It is an interesting option. As of last night a few states (Florida and Arizona, to name two) were not yet able to determine exact percentages, so I do worry that in a close election we would still be without a winner. The longer these things go the greater chance there is for after-the-fact shenanigans and legal challenges. I think the strife we saw in 2000 and to a lesser extent 2004 wold become the norm.