The GOP ticket that makes the most sense

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
As I previously stated in another thread, voters in at least 36 states -- and probably more -- will have no say in the 2016 presidential election outcome, regardless of who they vote for. That's because only the so-called "swing states" will decide the election, and the other 36 states (or more) can already safely be placed into either the "R" or "D" column.

For that reason -- and because probably the two most-important "swing states" are Ohio and Florida -- the most-winnable ticket that the Republicans can present to the voters is ... JOHN KASICH and MARCO RUBIO.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
... and repeating what I said in a mini-editorial I posted in a thread titled "The Divided States Of America" ...

Hillary Rodham Clinton and every member of the soon-to-be crowded field of Republican contenders will claim that they'll compete for the vote of each and every American, but that's just not true.

Each vote cast in the 2016 presidential election will count, but only a fraction of those votes will have any actual significance because of the electoral college setup.

No matter how you analyze it, only a small percentage of voters will cast meaningful votes, and that's why you won't see Hillary making campaign swings through Texas or Oklahoma and why you won't see any of the GOP hopefuls making many, if any, campaign stops in New York or California, although those states have many millions of voters.

As everyone should know, the popular vote means nothing in presidential elections. The only thing that counts is the number of electoral votes, and a significant majority of such votes are locked up before the process even begins.

Is there any doubt that New York and California will wind up in the Democratic camp or that the electoral votes of Texas and South Carolina will go the GOP's way?

Indeed, four of the five largest populated states can already be safely "counted" as secure for one party or the other. And those states contain 26 percent of the nation's residents, all of whom will have no real say in the presidential outcome.

By the same token, in 12 of the 20 largest states, there is no doubt as to which way their combined 236 electoral votes (or 44.1 percent) will go.

Campaign appearances in California or Texas will be virtually non-existent, whereas the candidates will swarm to "swing states" such as Ohio, Florida and Colorado.

Even stretching the possibilities -- because there may not even be that many -- only 14 states potentially fall into the "swing state" category, meaning that just 30.5 percent of the popular vote has any true meaning or value.

Breaking it down still further, even most of the "swing state" electorate will have their minds made up, leaving only a relatively small percentage of undecided and independents to determine which way the state goes.

Yes, every vote counts, but if you live in any of 36 states, your presidential vote will have no relevance whatsoever. And was that foreseen when the electoral college system was established? Not likely.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Very true. I don't disagree with the premise of the electoral college, but it needs to be modified from the current "winner take all" to allocating the electoral votes based on overall voting percentages. For example, if a candidate gets 30% of the vote in a state, that candidate gets 30% of that state's electoral votes.
 

bbfreeburn

Active Member
Very true. I don't disagree with the premise of the electoral college, but it needs to be modified from the current "winner take all" to allocating the electoral votes based on overall voting percentages. For example, if a candidate gets 30% of the vote in a state, that candidate gets 30% of that state's electoral votes.
So then you want to change the constitution? Just to be clear.
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
NOT SPEAKING FOR 9, BUT I THINK "WE THE PEOPLE" SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN WHO "WE" WANT TO RUN "OUR" COUNTRY.
 

bbfreeburn

Active Member
9, I've nothing against changing the constitution, but it's not a thing to be done lightly.. In this case I'd have to agree with you. I think the electoral college (not actually mentioned as such in the Constitution) made more sense when the population was much smaller.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Going back to the original post, with the electoral college system that we have, can anyone suggest a more-logical GOP ticket than Kasich and Rubio? Then again, the odds of the GOP winning are staggering, regardless of who the nominees are.
 
Top