• 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!

Proposition for changing the US presidential popular-vote

A popular vote system would concentrate all the political power in just 3 or 4 States and leave the rest of the country without proper representation at the Federal level.

Wow, three states have a majority of the population?
 
Oh, yeah. Let's exchange about a "stoopid notion" in red above!

YOU NEED BADLY TO TAKE A COURSE IN "CIVICS"!

Definition of "civics": the study or science of the privileges and obligations of citizens. Civic education is the study of the theoretical, political and practical aspects of citizenship, as well as its rights and duties.
I understand civics, and history. What you need is to take a course in debate because you really suck at it. If you can make a logical argument do it, but I doubt you have the knowledge.
 
The top 4 States have more population, and therefore more political power in a popular election than the bottom 26 States. How do you rectify that disparity?
 
Actually it would require repealing both the 16th and 17th amendments to achieve the benefit of bringing government more under control of the people.
You're still not explaining how taking the election of Senators away from voters (the People) and giving it to state legislatures makes anything better. And it seems to do the opposite of your claim of brining government "more under control of the people."
 
I would imagine that nothing short of a US constitutional amendment will change this.

Not a proposition.
No Amendment required.
"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

or

Amend the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to remove a cap on members of the House of Representatives. Allowing the number to increase with the population (as intended in the Constitution), this would not eliminate unequal representation, but it would dramatically reduce the undeserved power of the low population states.
 
The top 4 States have more population, and therefore more political power in a popular election than the bottom 26 States. How do you rectify that disparity?
Start thinking of ourselves as a single nation. Right now the less numerous citizens of smaller states have more political power than the more numerous citizens of larger states because of Senate representation. They also have more say in Presidential elections because of the electoral college. Why not rectify that disparity?
 
Start thinking of ourselves as a single nation. Right now the less numerous citizens of smaller states have more political power than the more numerous citizens of larger states because of Senate representation. They also have more say in Presidential elections because of the electoral college. Why not rectify that disparity?
We are not a single nation, and never will be. We are a Union of States with different cultures and beliefs. You see, that is the problem with liberal thinking, it is not based on reality.
 
We are not a single nation, and never will be. We are a Union of States with different cultures and beliefs. You see, that is the problem with liberal thinking, it is not based on reality.
We are both. And it doesn't answer the question of why the few should have more power than the many.
 
No Amendment required.
"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

or

Amend the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to remove a cap on members of the House of Representatives. Allowing the number to increase with the population (as intended in the Constitution), this would not eliminate unequal representation, but it would dramatically reduce the undeserved power of the low population states.
Is not the point of the US Senate to give equal representation to each state in that chamber? If so is this not evidence of the disproportionate political power that gives your state of Wyoming equal representation with the state of California? Should this change as well?

I would have to speak with an expert on constitutional law to know if your other assertions are correct.

I do know that US senators were not directly elected until about 100 years ago. Didn’t changing that require a constitutional amendment?

In any case, a pure vote count based solely on plurality would make the US president, president of the big cities.

Maybe this sounds ok to you.
 
We are both. And it doesn't answer the question of why the few should have more power than the many.
Actually it does, but you are not intelligent enough to grasp it. We are a nation of Individual States. The number of people within a State already gives populous States an advantage in Congress. To give them another advantage by electing the President by popular vote is stacking the deck. There needs to be a balance of power not only within the Federal Government, but among the States. Giving too much power to certain States and disenfranchising others is a recipe for national discord and possibly civil war.
 
Is not the point of the US Senate to give equal representation to each state in that chamber? If so is this not evidence of the disproportionate political power that gives your state of Wyoming equal representation with the state of California? Should this change as well?

I would have to speak with an expert on constitutional law to know if your other assertions are correct.

I do know that US senators were not directly elected until about 100 years ago. Didn’t changing that require a constitutional amendment?

In any case, a pure vote count based solely on plurality would make the US president, president of the big cities.

Maybe this sounds ok to you.
Never said anything about the Senate. Can you tell me how 3 million city votes are less important than 3 million rural votes? With the way America's population is actually living, the US President should be a President of the cities.
"The statistic shows the degree of urbanization in the United States from 1970 to 2019 and details the percentage of the entire population living in urban areas. In 2019, about 82.46 percent of the total population in the United States lived in cities and urban areas."
 
@mrjurrs
So you do believe in the idea of the US president of the major cities? Ok that is established.

I am still curious if you disapprove of the disproportionate power of your lowest population state, Wyoming, having equal representation to your largest population state which is California.

In your opinion, should this change as well?
 
Last edited:
Actually it does, but you are not intelligent enough to grasp it. We are a nation of Individual States. The number of people within a State already gives populous States an advantage in Congress. To give them another advantage by electing the President by popular vote is stacking the deck. There needs to be a balance of power not only within the Federal Government, but among the States. Giving too much power to certain States and disenfranchising others is a recipe for national discord and possibly civil war.
Your insult aside, this is an interesting conversation. You, and others, take the supremacy of individual states as an inherent good, but you have not provided any specifics as to why. And you also don't draw a clear distinction between States and their residents. A State is a political entity, but its citizens are also residents of the United States.

We don't fight wars as individual states. We don't negotiate treaties or conduct foreign policy as individual states. We did not address Covid effectively as individual states. We are BOTH a single nation and a nation of states, sometimes more one than the other, depending on the issue at stake.

Our system currently has one legislative chamber based on popular representation and one based on state representation. That seems equal to me. You say that electing the President by popular vote would, "stack the deck" in favor of populous states. How exactly is the "state" advantaged in this case, as opposed to the citizens of that state? Also, in the current system, the less populous states are advantaged, thus "stacking the deck" in their favor. How is this a more just or desirable situation?

What tyranny of the majority in terms of larger states vs smaller ones do you foresee? What state do you live in and what are you afraid will happen?
 
The top 4 States have more population, and therefore more political power in a popular election than the bottom 26 States. How do you rectify that disparity?

There is no disparity. Every citizen gets one vote. Lines on a map are not relevant.
 
You're still not explaining how taking the election of Senators away from voters (the People) and giving it to state legislatures makes anything better. And it seems to do the opposite of your claim of brining government "more under control of the people."
This threads topic is about changing the way a President is elected, which I have no interest in changing.
If someone who agrees with my suggestion of repealing the 16th and 17th amendments wishes to create a thread based on that, I would be glad to participate in answering questions of how it would bring government "more under control of the people".
Until such time, think about what changes that would necessitate, as I don't care to take this thread further away from its topic, but simply plant the seed for others who might agree and wish to discuss that topic in greater detail.
 
@mrjurrs
So you do believe in the idea of the US president of the major cities? Ok that is established.

I am still curious if you disapprove of the disproportionate power of your lowest population state, Wyoming, having equal representation to your largest population state which is California.

In your opinion, should this change as well?
That's not what I said, but answer me this. If over 80% of Americans live in urban centers, why are you so concerned about equal representation? Because you would be giving up power. America is an urban country, with a ton of rural open space.

The Senate representation model is in the Constitution. The House's is not. I recognize the Senate would require a Constitutional Amendment to change and I recognize that will never happen. Do I think CA should have more Senate representation than WY? Yes, but it's not realistic.
 
Your insult aside, this is an interesting conversation. You, and others, take the supremacy of individual states as an inherent good, but you have not provided any specifics as to why. And you also don't draw a clear distinction between States and their residents. A State is a political entity, but its citizens are also residents of the United States.

We don't fight wars as individual states. We don't negotiate treaties or conduct foreign policy as individual states. We did not address Covid effectively as individual states. We are BOTH a single nation and a nation of states, sometimes more one than the other, depending on the issue at stake.

Our system currently has one legislative chamber based on popular representation and one based on state representation. That seems equal to me. You say that electing the President by popular vote would, "stack the deck" in favor of populous states. How exactly is the "state" advantaged in this case, as opposed to the citizens of that state? Also, in the current system, the less populous states are advantaged, thus "stacking the deck" in their favor. How is this a more just or desirable situation?

What tyranny of the majority in terms of larger states vs smaller ones do you foresee? What state do you live in and what are you afraid will happen?
It has nothing to do with good or bad. It goes back to the construction of the country from the beginning. We are a republic, formed of individual States. We entered into a legal agreement which is the Constitution which formed the Federal Government. The States were very leary of the idea of a central government and did not want to create a tyranny.
While a central or Federal government is necessary for certain purpose's such as treaties and international relations, it can and has become a burden upon our country in many ways and has usurped powers the States never intended for the Federal Government to have.
Different States have different cultures, they have different financial considerations, they have different problems that the people of other States do not understand. Federal government as a rule does not do a very good job of understanding the individual States. It is therefore necessary for the States to retain as much autonomy as possible to look after the best interests of their people. Take water rights as an example. Under a popular vote, California would dwarf its neighboring states of Arizona and Nevada in Federal Political power. They could easily use that political power to pass Federal legislation monopolizing the water from the Colorado River and cutting off other States.
To believe that the Federal Government would be fair to all States when certain States basically control every election is naïve at best. As we all know, power corrupts and the only way to mitigate that corruption is to attempt to spread that power to all the States as evenly as possible. We do not want to imitate Animal Farm and have some animals more equal than others.
 
This threads topic is about changing the way a President is elected, which I have no interest in changing.
If someone who agrees with my suggestion of repealing the 16th and 17th amendments wishes to create a thread based on that, I would be glad to participate in answering questions of how it would bring government "more under control of the people".
Until such time, think about what changes that would necessitate, as I don't care to take this thread further away from its topic, but simply plant the seed for others who might agree and wish to discuss that topic in greater detail.
If you would like to start a thread I would like to discuss that also.
 
There is no disparity. Every citizen gets one vote. Lines on a map are not relevant.
Go take a civics class and come back when you understand we are a Republic of individual States, and not a homogenous single nation.
 
Half a million fraudulent Democratic ballots in California under the current system would not change the election outcome as California will go Democrat regardless.

However, half a million fraudulent votes shift if the election by popular vote would have reversed at least 5 elections, including Nixon would have defeated JFK. It also would reserve the Bush-Gore election. Nor would the first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, have won.

With a national popular vote, Republicans could steal the entire election in just one state such as Texas and Florida - and Democrats could steal the entire election in just one state such as California and New York.

It also means any glitch in any state jams up the entire election nationwide. It literally could result in NEVER knowing the outcome of the election. Lose of ballots (fire, theft etc) in just one state could erase the entire election, where with the EC for most elections one state would make any difference so would be a moot legal issue.
Except that voter fraud and election fraud are really, really hard to pull off, and never constitute a statistically significant number of votes.
 
If you would like to start a thread I would like to discuss that also.
I refrain from creating threads as I'm unable to give them the attention they should get from a creator.
Just recently got home from a 5 day stay in the hospital, and they wanted me to stay longer but I refused and checked myself out.
 
I refrain from creating threads as I'm unable to give them the attention they should get from a creator.
Just recently got home from a 5 day stay in the hospital, and they wanted me to stay longer but I refused and checked myself out.
Best wishes for your recovery...
 
Except that voter fraud and election fraud are really, really hard to pull off, and never constitute a statistically significant number of votes.
Ballot harvesting proves that is not the case....
 
That's not what I said, but answer me this. If over 80% of Americans live in urban centers, why are you so concerned about equal representation? Because you would be giving up power. America is an urban country, with a ton of rural open space.

The Senate representation model is in the Constitution. The House's is not. I recognize the Senate would require a Constitutional Amendment to change and I recognize that will never happen. Do I think CA should have more Senate representation than WY? Yes, but it's not realistic.
I think the US should abandon it’s two party system and move to a parliamentary government like here but that of course is entirely not realistic.

The reason I believe this is because minority opinions have to be listened to in order to form and maintain a government.

The fact is that your two party system is for all intents and purposes winner take all.

Having an electoral college slightly evens out the system. If a large red state like Texas loses it’s choice of president at least it can have a little more power in the choice with it’s electors.

And let’s face it, if Trump had won the popular vote and lost in the electoral college the US left would say, see the system works.
 
Go take a civics class and come back when you understand we are a Republic of individual States, and not a homogenous single nation.

States are represented in the Senate, there's zero need to pretend they have relevance for presidential elections. States long ago gave up the idea of appointing electors to deliberate, they turned presidential elections over to popular votes. The fact that we're stuck aggregating state-level popular votes via an algorithm that's heavily distorted by the decision over the last century not to continue raising the cap on House seats with population growth isn't some grand design, it's an accident of history that makes very little sense in the present context.

Re-weighting votes based on geography is not justifiable. And weighting all Americans equally does not introduce a disparity, it removes one.
 
Back
Top Bottom