I'm fine with the electoral college if they actually divided up the states electoral votes by the percentage each candidate gets in that state.  Only a couple states actually do this.  The winner takes all aspect of someone getting 51% of the vote yet getting all the votes for the state needs to stop.  I'd like to see you argue for winner takes all.

But isn't that, like, the entire point of the Senate? The role of the Senate is to ensure that every state is represented by the federal government. It simply doesn't make sense to weigh votes for president in non-equal ways to fill this purpose when this purpose is already filled.

That said, I also don't agree with your premise. It would be far more difficult for a president to win the popular vote if they disregarded the entire middle of the country. Even for Clinton, millions of votes came from these states. On the contrary, as we are now, the interests of a select few swing states are the only ones that actually matter in a presidential general election. Why should a Republican presidential candidate try to appeal to voters in Cali? Why should a Dem candidate try to appeal to voters in Kentucky? Hell, why should anyone do anything for a state whose result is already essentially ensured? The specific interests of these states already aren't being adequately met by our current candidates as a result of the electoral college system. Switching to a popular vote system could make it more important for a president to establish a broad coalition instead of a highly specific one...

Your last paragraph is a good reason why not to have winner takes all in the electoral college.  Some people simply don't vote because they know their vote won't count if their state is heavily for a party that they are not.

Like I said earlier my vote has never counted in the state of Texas.  You could keep the electoral college but hand out the states electoral votes for the state based on percentage of votes each candidate receives.  This would make republican vote count in California and democrat vote count in Alabama in the presidential election. 

Sure the biased of votes being more weighted for smaller states would still be there due to the electoral college but at least all the votes would actually matter instead of people who went against the majority of what their state voted for being automatically thrown out.

A fitting monument to a fascist.

The purpose of police are to enforce laws, maintain order and safety.  The problem with the US is that we have tasked them with tons of other roles ill suited to their profession.  And instead of training them better on those other roles, it is best if we re-allocated the department funding for those types of situations/roles to actual dedicated departments and personnel such as social workers, mental health workers, etc...

That's not to say they don't need better training in their core roles.  They do. But that can easily be handled by better overtime policy/management, getting rid of quotas and qualified immunity.

The school issue is part of that 'defunding' talk.  It's the reallocation of funds from a police department to those services that would reduce the need for such police forces to begin with.  Police are a band-aid so why would you put all your budget into band-aids instead of what's causing the wounds in the first place?

I'll give you some examples. Notice how little goes to community outreach in the police department budgets?  Also notice the city budgets

The police department budget for Signal Hill - a suburb of Los Angeles.

City budget of Fullerton - another LA suburb.

San Antonio city budget:

This is a small town in the California desert.

Houston city budget:

Long Beach city budget:

Also notice how none of these budgets list schools?

In America, the left fights for voting equality and a high voter turnout, which is good for them.

On the other hand, the right fights for voting inequality and voter suppression, which is good for them.

Why do you consider the former to be a larger issue?

Because he's clearly on the right. Obviously, he doesn't care about WHAT's right, he cares about what is beneficial for him! 

Seeing guys like SpokenTruth and Sundin made me realize Im not very good at debating. They do their homework, research and present their opinions very well. I might not agree with everything, but I can clearly see they are very smart and passionate people. I dont usually do this, but I want to apologize to them for wasting their time. You guys deserve better. Ill just read yours and others comments and try to learn instead of embarrassing myself.


That was hard enough to admit. I need a cigarette...

I defend what is correct and I defend that we follow established rules, if there is one thing I hate the most is politicians trying to change rules to make it beneficial for them. If there is a set of rules today, why change it? What are the interests behind the decision? From what I see usually the left wants to change rules to increase their voting base while the right wants to keep the rules. And I am always in favor or keeping the rules. You should not change the rules so you can win.

Myself I'm 100% pro voting inside prisions. If I'm not wrong, people serving jail time in US cannot vote, which I think is 100% wrong, these people should be able to vote. At the same time, I am against voting below 18 years old of whatever is the adulthood age in the country, and when I see politicians trying to bring it down to 16 it's always to increase voting to left leaning parties for obvious reasons. Also I am against illegal immigrant voting and it baffles me that people are pro it. Its an obvious tactic to increase voting for pro mass immigration parties that in exchange will be able to bring more people in that will vote for those politicians and etc. I am also 100% pro mail in voting as long as it is really possible to avoid fraud.

He technically could, but he won't. He has already committed to a female VP candidate and possibly the most important thing for a VP for Biden is for them to be at least a bit younger, imo, as his age is one of his biggest weaknesses as a candidate.

That said, as a Bernie voter, I don't really think that Biden is a bad candidate. Certainly not worse than Clinton. Biden has been making a pretty concerted effort to collaborate with Bernie specifically and his platform has been shifted pretty far to the left on numerous issues. If you are a Bernie supporter, I feel it should be a pretty easy transition to vote for Biden in November, especially given the opponent. There is simply no comparing the horribleness of Trump to Biden.