- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,010
- Reaction score
- 5,437
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
IOW, you don't like One man, One vote.We should keep the electoral college. I do not like the idea of New York,California and a handful of other densely populated states being able to screw the rest of the country.This is why our forefathers went with the electoral college.
We should keep the electoral college. I do not like the idea of New York,California and a handful of other densely populated states being able to screw the rest of the country.This is why our forefathers went with the electoral college.
what you are missing is the loser will always have to do this will they not? what would make them not go else where if they are losing in the pools just like now?
Exactly! Founding fathers usually know best!
IMO one man one vote isn't working, and could be reformed to a who pays taxes votes deal... But I'm not so sure we should do that... Just keep it as it s b/c it isn't broken for now... But don't let illegals vote nor felons
Any way you do it, some states are going to be looked over. That's just reality. I think more states will be focused on though through a popular vote method though.
Electoral College (United States)The closest the country has ever come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress. The presidential election of 1968 ended with Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes to Hubert Humphrey's 191. Yet, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, equating to less than 1% of the national total. George Wallace received the remaining 46 electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote.
The locations they have not mined in the big states that are blue or red, will be the focus.
The electoral college is founded on the idea that the people who live in a state are all homogeneous with each other. The college is intended to prevent more populous states from imposing their will on the smaller ones. But states don't actually operate that way. Most states are split close to 50/50, and even the most divisive states split closer to 60/40, maybe reaching as far as 70/30. In 1998, GWB won re-election as governor of Texas in a landslide with 69% of the vote. 69% is a landslide. Clearly, Texas is not as uniformly red as some people might think. No state is uniformly one way or another. That's just not how voters work in this country. The problem that the electoral college exists to prevent doesn't actually happen. New York wouldn't have any influence in a presidential election, because New York wouldn't be a prize to be won. Each individual voter in the state would be a unique and separate data point, and some would go one way and some the other. A direct popular vote would make every single vote count the same, since states do not move as homogeneous blocks.
Why do you have so little respect for the majority of the population of your nation? Do you hate the United States that much?
IOW, you don't like One man, One vote.
You want to continue the DISproportionate power of the Sparser Western RED States.. of course.
This disproportionate power also, and related, weighs on the day-to-day running of our Government through the Senate.
1 Million People in Wyoming have 2 Senators, while 20 Million people in NY have only the same 2 Senators.
20 Million People living in Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc, Totaled together, have far more power than the same number living in one Larger state.
Thus, Laws are made, Judges approved, and money distributed, Unequally in favor of sparser RED States.
Good news :I'll answer the same as I have every other time this has come up. The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary. No one person's vote should count for more than any other person's.
They are already able to do this. California gets 50-something votes while Nebraska gets 2. If you were arguing for a system where each state got equal votes you'd be on the right track.
Excapt that they do not. Neither chamber votes along state lines.And bigger states dominate the House.
Of course, but that is per capita/PROPORTIONAL/Fair representation.And bigger states dominate the House.
We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.
Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
Of course, but that is per capita/PROPORTIONAL/Fair representation.
What a non sequitur reply.
You have a Logic problem. (to be kind)We prefer our disproportional representation in one body, hence my reply. You call it fair to do otherwise, we do not.
ANOTHER Logic-challenged/Deficient post.We do not consider it to be fair that affairs be dictated and commanded by those of larger populations at the expense of many of us who are not more populated. Your democratic summations need to be counterbalanced to ensure fairness.
We do not consider it to be fair that affairs be dictated and commanded by those of larger populations at the expense of many of us who are not more populated. Your democratic summations need to be counterbalanced to ensure fairness.
North Dakota has zero power in the current presidential election. Its has a tiny number of electoral votes and always votes Republican. Nobody will spend any money or assign pork projects to try and woo voters. The idea that the electoral college somehow protects the interests of smaller states has no basis in reality. All it really does give disproportionate influence to medium/large sized states with closely matched voters. The senate actually gives you an equal voice, the EC simply favors Ohio and Florida.
You must not have been around in 2008, or during the primary season.
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?