Yeah..just the little states making the determination even when the popular vote exceeds the entire population of more than one of those states. They enjoy a handicap as long as the EC exists.Seems to be working fine. I don't see any single party winning the presidency in perpetuity.
It does to some extent but what exactly is your solution? A nationwide popular vote?This topic comes up often, and these weak arguments are all you have to address them . . . really?
Move to Wyoming? That's all your brain can come up with?
The question concerning the difficulty of changing the electoral college is a totally different one from the question of the fairness of the electoral college.
Of your two responses, one is an illogical tangent, and the other is a silly demand.
Neither addresses the fact that the electoral college leads to unequal voter power.
Yeah..just the little states making the determination even when the popular vote exceeds the entire population of more than one of those states. They enjoy a handicap as long as the EC exists.
would you like some cheese with that "whine"
you want to debate the unfairness of it....sorry
life is unfair....get used to it.....
either change it, or move on....those sir are the choices that life has given you.....bitching about it isnt doing a damn thing
It does to some extent but what exactly is your solution? A nationwide popular vote?
There have been many, many commentaries on the problems caused by a country that is actually a group of 50 distinct states. And of course, we fought a bloody war on the topic.
But the fact is, we do remain a country of 50 distinct states and while I did not like the fact that in 2000 and 2016 the candidate I voted for got the most votes but didn't win, but that is the system we have and you need to think long and hard about how to make it a better one. America should not ever be a tyranny of the masses.
Why do you continue to complain about what you can't change?The senate is why it's bullshit. Those flyover states already get two senators same as California and New York.
And the electoral college makes their votes count for more than everybody else's in the presidential. The president isn't a representative like congressfolk are. He's the executive. You wouldn't be singing this song if all the little states voted for the AOC wing. And you know that.
1. Without how it is currently set up, there is no America. This was the contract made to unite the states into one country. We would not have had the nation we have today if not for our current dynamic. We'd be more like Europe without the EU.
2. You, and the author, have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic principles and what it is to be American. We were never meant to be a pure majority rule. Despite Democrats getting more votes, that doesn't mean all Democrats everywhere support the same positions as the most radical Democrats in California and New York. A Democrat in Georgia or Texas isn't really the same type of Democrat as Oregon or Washington.
3. You and the author don't seem to have a fundamental understanding of the rule of law. For example:
- "Policies supported by a majority of Americans in opinion polls could be ruled unconstitutional, all because a president who lost the popular vote nominated three justices, and senators representing a minority of the American population confirmed them."
Whether something is ruled constitutional or unconstitutional has absolutely nothing to do with an opinion poll. There is literally no connection there. The rules are based of of, and only based off of, whether the Constitution allows that authority to happen.
We are the Unite States of America, not the United States of California and New York.
That's just a quick brush of the many issues present here.
Propose a solution. How about proportional representation of electors for each state?Right now, I'm not thinking about solutions. Simply getting people to agree on a common reality, the fact of unequal voter rights, is a big enough challenge in today's political climate.
The response to this fact is typically one of four things: to deny that the fact is a fact (delusional); to come up with generally weak rationalizations for our current system (lazy and/or unintelligent); to say that the electoral college will never change (irrelevant opinion); or to ask for a solution.
Only the last of these makes sense to me. But as you can see, dealing with the other three is problem enough for the time being, because talking about solutions will soon get smothered by the peanut gallery.
Propose a solution. How about proportional representation of electors for each state?
This isn't about anything but power. Period.
In reality, what it does is encourage a barrage of propaganda in those states to secure their votes so republican congressfolk can execute the desires of coastal republican donors.They a bunch of little states together adds up but it still takes more than those little states. I know it makes you upset the the system created keeps things balanced, where you'd prefer extremism, but that just ain't how it goes.
No. For reasons why, read the post from you that you literally just quoted.
In reality, what it does is encourage a barrage of propaganda in those states to secure their votes so republican congressfolk can execute the desires of coastal republican donors.
This effort is largely responsible for our current divide. Sinclair picked his audience quite carefully.
A good read and an ideology that I subscribe to. Trump, McConnell, and the GOP will do everything in their power to string-out minority-power rule in the United States for as long as possible.
It's what they've been doing for years.That's not exactly how it works, you think Republican voters in Nebraska, are going to keep putting in Republican Congressman/woman who ignores their needs for what was it, coastal republican donors?
I love that you think you can come here and body people while your orange clown of a president and his cucked followers have been crying non stop for weeks because he lost.So you are content about bitching and whining about it? Ok....
A tyranny of the minority is better? What tyranny? Equal voting-power is going to lead to enslavement? Enslavement is what led to unequal voting-power.It does to some extent but what exactly is your solution? A nationwide popular vote?
There have been many, many commentaries on the problems caused by a country that is actually a group of 50 distinct states. And of course, we fought a bloody war on the topic.
But the fact is, we do remain a country of 50 distinct states and while I did not like the fact that in 2000 and 2016 the candidate I voted for got the most votes but didn't win, but that is the system we have and you need to think long and hard about how to make it a better one. America should not ever be a tyranny of the masses.
People vote, people are people no matter where they live.
Currently, a person's vote in CA is not a strong as it is in South Dakota .
In time, the concept of 'one man one vote' will be restored.
The senate and the EC were created at a time when a state having 40,000,000 residents was not imagined.
What was considered justice in the late 18th century does not equal justice, today.
Therefore, your point is not a strong one.
I love that you think you can come here and body people while your orange clown of a president and his cucked followers have been crying non stop for weeks because he lost.
It's what they've been doing for years.
That's ok, I love the fact that you think I give a **** about your opinion, and about Trump.......BTW that orange clown of a President was your President as well....unless you are saying you aren't A US citizen any longer....right?
CA is socialist? "Diseased ideology"? Say what?It's more relevant today than it's ever been. We aren't the US of Socialist States of California, which is what we'd turn into if we changed it to your way. The would only speed up the divisions in the nation and hasten it's end. California still has more influence than any other state in the country, but their diseased ideology is limited some.
What's with all of these "conservatives" with Canadian flags posting about American politics?That's ok, I love the fact that you think I give a **** about your opinion, and about Trump.......BTW that orange clown of a President was your President as well....unless you are saying you aren't A US citizen any longer....right?
CA is socialist? "Diseased ideology"? Say what?
A lot of people don't fully understand the links between slavery, conservatism, the Three-fifths Compromise, the Electoral College, and Congress. Do you?Obviously you don't understand both the construct of the nation, or my post. It was never one person one vote for the President or the Senate in our system.
"Fleeing the state" doesn't answer the questions.Yes...why do you think people are fleeing the state and CA is trying to "build their walls" to keep them fenced in?
Will affluent residents leaving California still have to pay the state’s proposed wealth tax? - San Francisco Business Times (bizjournals.com)
California’s proposed wealth tax includes an unusual twist — the tax would apply to former residents for 10 years.
The pace of departures among California’s wealthy may have reached the point that lawmakers anticipate a rush to the exits if they adopt a first-in-the-nation wealth tax that’s projected to raise $7.5 billion annually from about 30,000 residents. The proposed wealth tax would charge a rate of 0.4% on net worth above $30 million.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?