• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minority Rule Cannot Last in America

You'd think that conservatives would be in favor of each citizen's vote being equal to the others.

They seem to think that equality is important in other areas.

In some scenarios, it is a bedrock principle for them.

But not in other scenarios.

Odd.

every citizens vote is equal to each and every other vote cast WITHIN THAT STATE

we then calculate the STATES votes (called the EC) to determine the winner of the presidency

we are not a democracy....nor will we ever be a straight democracy

the popular vote ONLY counts within the states borders....nowhere else

otherwise the coastal cities and larger populations would control the whole country, even though they only control a small portion of the land

those people in the middle of the country raising wheat and corn....their vote and their states count too
 
every citizens vote is equal to each and every other vote cast WITHIN THAT STATE

we then calculate the STATES votes (called the EC) to determine the winner of the presidency

the popular vote ONLY counts within the states borders....nowhere else
In 48 of our 50 states, Electors are chosen based on which candidate received the most votes.

If the Democrat candidate wins the vote, only Democrat Electors from that state vote. Likewise if the Republican candidate wins within the state.

On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the electors meet in their respective States to cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States.

Understanding the process, it is completely disingenuous to assert that the popular vote only counts within the individual states.
we are not a democracy....nor will we ever be a straight democracy
Nor are we a straight Republic.
otherwise the coastal cities and larger populations would control the whole country, even though they only control a small portion of the land

those people in the middle of the country raising wheat and corn....their vote and their states count too
The land doesn’t get a vote, citizens do.

Factually, the EC system, as it works today gives a disproportionately greater say to those who live in so-called “flyover” states in relation to citizens living in more densely populated states.
 
Last edited:
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.
So we're the United States of a couple of flyover states. Sounds so much better.
 
every citizens vote is equal to each and every other vote cast WITHIN THAT STATE

we then calculate the STATES votes (called the EC) to determine the winner of the presidency

we are not a democracy....nor will we ever be a straight democracy

the popular vote ONLY counts within the states borders....nowhere else

otherwise the coastal cities and larger populations would control the whole country, even though they only control a small portion of the land

those people in the middle of the country raising wheat and corn....their vote and their states count too
They would potentially "control" the presidency. Not the whole country.
 
In social dynamics, the majority in question is power not population. Sure, in population demographics the majority in question is population. Granted. But not in social dynamics. Women are a minority because they are a (disproportional) power minority. Populations wavering between men and women above and below 50% does not change thousands of years of oppression and underrepresentation today.

In this vein, we might consider the potentially real future of less than 50% of the people owning 90% of the wealth. Right now, white people are what, maybe 70% of the population? We expect them to be less than that in the future. While average skin tone may change, that doesn't mean money will change hands. White people, a dwindling demographic, will maintain wealth and power. What happens if 20% of the population owns 90% of the wealth?

Note: We're not talking about 1% of the people, the richest, having most of the wealth. We're talking about a physical demographic, a minority population, holding virtually all of the wealth and power in America. We're talking Apartheid in America. Now that's the minority rule that cannot be sustained.
 
every citizens vote is equal to each and every other vote cast WITHIN THAT STATE

we then calculate the STATES votes (called the EC) to determine the winner of the presidency

we are not a democracy....nor will we ever be a straight democracy
I believe you mean we will never be a direct democracy, we are in deed a democracy, a representative democracy.

gdgyva said:
the popular vote ONLY counts within the states borders....nowhere else

otherwise the coastal cities and larger populations would control the whole country, even though they only control a small portion of the land

those people in the middle of the country raising wheat and corn....their vote and their states count too
Why only account for regional differences? Again, to prove how disingenuous this argument is one only has to ask if you EC proponents would be in favor of implementing a system that alleviates the discrepancy between minority black and brown voters and white ones?
 
every citizens vote is equal to each and every other vote cast WITHIN THAT STATE

we then calculate the STATES votes (called the EC) to determine the winner of the presidency

we are not a democracy....nor will we ever be a straight democracy

the popular vote ONLY counts within the states borders....nowhere else

otherwise the coastal cities and larger populations would control the whole country, even though they only control a small portion of the land

those people in the middle of the country raising wheat and corn....their vote and their states count too

It's not a state vote. It's a national vote. For our president.

And the vote of a guy in Montana is worth more than a guy in California, Texas, or New York.

Under any comparison that matters, their voting power isn't unequal.

As a general note, it would be nice if these conservatives defending this unequal voting power would stop pretending that they really care about fairness, because when fairness gives them some sort of disadvantage, they find reasons--and generally weak ones, too--to support unfairness.

It's unequal. Conservatives should stop pretending that fairness is some bedrock moral principle of theirs--we all know them, the "I don't see color!" bullshitters--because that has never been true.
 
Last edited:
It's not a state vote. It's a national vote. For our president.

And the vote of a guy in Montana is worth more than a guy in California, Texas, or New York.

Under any comparison that matters, their voting power isn't unequal.

As a general note, it would be nice if these conservatives defending this unequal voting power would stop pretending that they really care about fairness, because when fairness gives them some sort of disadvantage, they find reasons--and generally weak ones, too--to support unfairness.

It's unequal. Conservatives should stop pretending that fairness is some bedrock moral principle of theirs--we all know them, the "I don't see color!" bullshitters--because that has never been true.

You're wrong,

That vote in CA gives 55 electors towards the Presidency

That vote in MT gives what is it, 3? towards the Presidency.

So the vote in CA would be stronger, would it not?
 
It's not a state vote. It's a national vote. For our president.

And the vote of a guy in Montana is worth more than a guy in California, Texas, or New York.

Under any comparison that matters, their voting power isn't unequal.

As a general note, it would be nice if these conservatives defending this unequal voting power would stop pretending that they really care about fairness, because when fairness gives them some sort of disadvantage, they find reasons--and generally weak ones, too--to support unfairness.

It's unequal. Conservatives should stop pretending that fairness is some bedrock moral principle of theirs--we all know them, the "I don't see color!" bullshitters--because that has never been true.
It doesn't matter. The Electoral College is never going away.
 
every few months another one of these threads pops up....

and it always is the "unfair" argument

and the response is always the same....you know how to change it....so what is stopping you?

like you said, you control the population....all you have to do is make them move to those pesky flyover states long enough to vote

changing the constitution cant be that hard, right?

you dont like the EC....either change it, or MOVE....those are your choices
 
You're wrong,

That vote in CA gives 55 electors towards the Presidency

That vote in MT gives what is it, 3? towards the Presidency.

So the vote in CA would be stronger, would it not?

Not at all.

What are you ignoring?

What calculation are you not making?
 
It doesn't matter. The Electoral College is never going away.

Whether your opinion accurately predicts the future, or whether the topic matters to you, is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
In Wyoming, there are about 150,000 people to each electoral vote.

In California, there are about 500,000 people to each electoral vote.

It is indisputable that a Wyoming resident's vote has more power--significantly so--than that of a California voter.

It is indisputable that, when comparing states, voting power is not equal.

Conservatives who defend the electoral college should stop pretending that they care about equality, because they clearly don't.

Caring about equality is not part of their moral system.
 
every few months another one of these threads pops up....

and it always is the "unfair" argument

and the response is always the same....you know how to change it....so what is stopping you?

like you said, you control the population....all you have to do is make them move to those pesky flyover states long enough to vote

changing the constitution cant be that hard, right?

you dont like the EC....either change it, or MOVE....those are your choices

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.
 
every few months another one of these threads pops up....

and it always is the "unfair" argument

and the response is always the same....you know how to change it....so what is stopping you?

like you said, you control the population....all you have to do is make them move to those pesky flyover states long enough to vote

changing the constitution cant be that hard, right?

you dont like the EC....either change it, or MOVE....those are your choices
I have never called the EC unfair because fairness is a concept for children. I have called your support of it disingenuous because you only apply the concept of protecting the votes of a very specific minority group (rural white conservatives) and that's it. If you want to give up that silly game and just admit the obvious that's fine by me but I'm not sure how much of a brag it is. We don't need to switch to a popular vote to defeat you over and over and over again. Eventually the math gets so big not even the electoral college will save you. Trump increased vote turnout for Republicans and still lost by 7 million votes. 😂
 
In Wyoming, there are about 150,000 people to each electoral vote.

In California, there are about 500,000 people to each electoral vote.

It is indisputable that a Wyoming resident's vote has more power--significantly so--than that of a California voter.

It is indisputable that, when comparing states, voting power is not equal.

Conservatives who defend the electoral college should stop pretending that they care about equality, because they clearly don't.

Caring about equality is not part of their moral system.
The way to make it more equal would be for states to eliminate voting as the means to select their presidential electors every four years. Problem solved.
 
Whether your opinion accurately predicts the future, or whether the topic matters to you, is irrelevant to the discussion.
The discussion is what is irrelevant.
 
Not at all.

What are you ignoring?

What calculation are you not making?

Not making any calculations, I know that CA has 55 electoral votes, so the vote in that state can swing a Presidential election, more than a vote in Montana with their 3 electoral votes,

Feel to say that's inaccurate...I will wait.
 
In Wyoming, there are about 150,000 people to each electoral vote.

In California, there are about 500,000 people to each electoral vote.

It is indisputable that a Wyoming resident's vote has more power--significantly so--than that of a California voter.

It is indisputable that, when comparing states, voting power is not equal.

Conservatives who defend the electoral college should stop pretending that they care about equality, because they clearly don't.

Caring about equality is not part of their moral system.

Except people don't get to vote for ELECTORAL votes......I mean, if you want to argue that someone in Montana should be able to vote for 1 electoral vote for Demorcat, 1 for Republican and 1 for Outer space, go for it,

If you are basing your argument on population, I don't know what to tell you....other than, if your voting power means THAT much to you, and you believe that population is the only thing that matters when it comes to electoral votes, move to a state where you can get more voting power.
 
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.

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
 
So we're the United States of a couple of flyover states. Sounds so much better.

Nope...We're the United States of America, where everyone has at least some representation. If this really bothers you, let me tell you about this thing called the Senate. That will really burn your britches.
 
Nope...We're the United States of America, where everyone has at least some representation. If this really bothers you, let me tell you about this thing called the Senate. That will really burn your britches.
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.
 
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.

Seems to be working fine. I don't see any single party winning the presidency in perpetuity.
 
Back
Top Bottom