Can you explain why the votes of 3 million rural voters should count more than the votes of 3 million urban voters? I don't think so.Right. Let the Dem-controlled big cities be the ones to decide who the President is.
Hell, we'll only need one party. We'll be just like the Soviet Union or China...complete with stuffed ballot boxes when necessary.
Sounds good to me.
Because they’re cool.Why should Wyoming have four times the voting-power of Florida?
'Propaganda papers'?Can you narrow it down to a handful of propaganda papers that might have the evidence that you haven't provided to support your claim so I can search for that unspecified evidence?
Because they have different interests that do not affect cities whereas cities are full of people with projects they want to impose on the hinterlands.Can you explain why the votes of 3 million rural voters should count more than the votes of 3 million urban voters? I don't think so.
Yes, the federalist papers were propaganda, as we're the anti-federalist papers and/or such.'Propaganda papers'?
Cliff Notes: Summary and Analysis Section XI: Need for a Strong Executive: Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton)
WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
The discussion on this
Chris Hayes Destroys Electoral College Arguments
There are a number of words thrown around here that don't mean what is implied. Its a tactic, and a pretty crude one. They say "republic" 'cause it sounds like "Republican" instead of "representative democracy" because that sounds like "Democrat". Silly, no? What nonsense is this? "Upon...debatepolitics.com
yawn...Yes, the founding slave owners knew they would have more political power when owning slaves gave them more political power.
Yes, the federalist papers were propaganda, as we're the anti-federalist papers and/or such.
Now that you've suggested that there's text in #68 that supports your claim, it's easier for you to find that text, quote it, and show how it supports your argument.
This compromise to satisfy the small states is exactly the same reason why NYC and California should not be the sole electors of presidents.The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
(See All of the Federalist 68)
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. This creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes count more than those people living in medium and large states.
They don't.Can you explain why the votes of 3 million rural voters should count more than the votes of 3 million urban voters? I don't think so.
You've circled back to your faulty premise.This compromise to satisfy the small states is exactly the same reason why NYC and California should not be the sole electors of presidents.
Why should it unequal amounts of people to get an electoral vote, depending on what state they vote in?They don't.
The votes from each state count equally with every other vote...in that state. Based on their population, some states have more electoral votes than other states. Each electoral vote counts just as much as every other electoral vote.
Seriously...I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
It's based on population. States have higher or lower populations than others.Why should it unequal amounts of people to get an electoral vote, depending on what state they vote in?
It's coarsely based on population.It's based on population. States have higher or lower populations than others.
Not a valid comparison.It's the same reason some states have more House Representatives than others.
Chuckle.I'm pretty sure you are an American. Why don't you know this?
Right. Let the Dem-controlled big cities be the ones to decide who the President is. Hell, we'll only need one party. We'll be just like the Soviet Union or China...complete with stuffed ballot boxes when necessary. Sounds good to me.
Yep. The explicit purpose of the Federalist Papers was propaganda, specifically to convince people to ratify the then-new Constitution. How do you not know this?'Propaganda papers'?
WY gets one electoral vote for every @90,000 voters. CA gets one electoral vote for every @310,000 voters. Yes, I do need to explain the equity in this system.They don't.
The votes from each state count equally with every other vote...in that state. Based on their population, some states have more electoral votes than other states. Each electoral vote counts just as much as every other electoral vote.
Seriously...I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Yep. The explicit purpose of the Federalist Papers was propaganda, specifically to convince people to ratify the then-new Constitution. How do you not know this?
You have to know that the Electoral College is never going away. Anti-American Democrat filth have been trying to abolish the Electoral College since they lost by a massive landslide against Nixon in 1972. In absolutely every session of Congress for the last 48 years Democrats have introduced a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would abolish the Electoral College. In absolutely every case for the last 24 Sessions of Congress the proposed amendment has always died in committee, never once reaching the floor for a vote.Now is the time to eliminate the battleground states. Get rid of the electoral college. Your vote only counts in these states. The excessive money and attention is directed there. The potential bribes go there. A presidential campaign should be focused on all people. I think this would result in a message that would appeal to the middle. Is it really a democracy if millions are disenfranchised?
DC cannot become a State. Not without a proposed amendment that repeals Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution being passed by three-fourths of the State legislatures first. In fact, DC was originally part of two States (Maryland and Virginia). When the founders created the US Constitution they specifically set aside "not exceeding ten miles square" from those two States to be the federal capital of the nation. Abolishing DC would revert the land back to the two States that originally owned the property.Maybe they shouldn't.
If DC and Puerto Rico are granted statehood, will you still be a big fan of small states getting two Senators...?
Redistricting will vary by State. The two major political parties alternate after every census. For example, after the 2010 census the Alaskan Republican Party did the redistricting in Alaska. Now, after the 2020 census the Alaskan Democratic Party will do the redistricting. After the 2030 census, the Alaskan Republican Party will once again be responsible for the redistricting in Alaska.The battleground states of GA, WI, MI, OH, PA, NC, FL, IA, and AZ have state legislatures all run by the GOP. They will control redistricting.
Reapportionment will add CDs to GOP-run states like AZ, TX, FL and NC and hurt DEMs by taking CDs from GOP-run states like MI, OH, and PA.
We saw ‘mob rule’ on 1/6 and are now militarily prepared to defend the USA against Trump’s traitors.
Incorrect. You're confusing the Federalist Papers with various notes from the Constitutional Convention.I knew that it was discussions between the founding fathers regarding specific topics related to The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, expanding / expounding on some those items.
Well, that's what they were.Yes, they were to persuade the reader to support and ratify the then-new Constitution. I don't agree with your likening them to propaganda.
There is no helping the fact the the majority of states are red or blue. Until that changes this will continue. Washington state where I live is blue no matter what. Oklahoma is red as it gets. That why Georgia and Arizona where so big.Now is the time to eliminate the battleground states. Get rid of the electoral college. Your vote only counts in these states. The excessive money and attention is directed there. The potential bribes go there. A presidential campaign should be focused on all people. I think this would result in a message that would appeal to the middle. Is it really a democracy if millions are disenfranchised?
TThe GOP realized that they are outnumbered and they have minority opinions on almost every issue. Tax and guns being the possible exception. They win other ways. Gerrymandering and making it harder to vote which favors the GOP.Redistricting will vary by State. The two major political parties alternate after every census. For example, after the 2010 census the Alaskan Republican Party did the redistricting in Alaska. Now, after the 2020 census the Alaskan Democratic Party will do the redistricting. After the 2030 census, the Alaskan Republican Party will once again be responsible for the redistricting in Alaska.
Reapportionment is not possible, unless Congress repeals the Apportionment Act of 1911. According to that law there cannot be more then 435 (438 due to the 23rd Amendment) House Representatives, regardless of the number of States.
So if you want to complain with having your vote being valued less, start with the Apportionment Act of 1911. That is what killed proportional representation in the US. Your vote is worth four times less than your grandfather's vote, and your children's vote will be valued at half of what your vote has been.
The Democrats do the exact same thing every other decade, and it has nothing to do with whether they are in the minority or not. Naturally you have to demonstrate your leftist hypocrisy for all to see.TThe GOP realized that they are outnumbered and they have minority opinions on almost every issue. Tax and guns being the possible exception. They win other ways. Gerrymandering and making it harder to vote which favors the GOP.
Right. Let the Dem-controlled big cities be the ones to decide who the President is.
Hell, we'll only need one party. We'll be just like the Soviet Union or China...complete with stuffed ballot boxes when necessary.
Sounds good to me.
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?