- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,231
- Reaction score
- 21,633
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
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.
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.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.
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."Actually it would require repealing both the 16th and 17th amendments to achieve the benefit of bringing government more under control of the people.
No Amendment required.I would imagine that nothing short of a US constitutional amendment will change this.
Not a proposition.
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?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?
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.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 both. And it doesn't answer the question of why the few should have more power than the many.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.
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?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."
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
One-page explanation (PDF) The National Popular Vote law will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It will apply the one-person-one-vote principle to presidential elections, and make every vote equal. Why a...www.nationalpopularvote.com
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.
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.We are both. And it doesn't answer the question of why the few should have more power than the many.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
This threads topic is about changing the way a President is elected, which I have no interest in changing.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."
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.@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?
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.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?
If you would like to start a thread I would like to discuss that also.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.
Go take a civics class and come back when you understand we are a Republic of individual States, and not a homogenous single nation.There is no disparity. Every citizen gets one vote. Lines on a map are not relevant.
Except that voter fraud and election fraud are really, really hard to pull off, and never constitute a statistically significant number of votes.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.
I refrain from creating threads as I'm unable to give them the attention they should get from a creator.If you would like to start a thread I would like to discuss that also.
Best wishes for your recovery...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.
Ballot harvesting proves that is not the case....Except that voter fraud and election fraud are really, really hard to pull off, and never constitute a statistically significant number of votes.
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.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.
Go take a civics class and come back when you understand we are a Republic of individual States, and not a homogenous single nation.
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?