The feds having anthing at all to do with it would be quite clearly unconstitutional. Any change would have to be in the states. And each state individually would have to change it's laws if not their state constitution as well. To have the feds do it would take a constitutional amendment that three fourths of the states would have to ratify. I think we both know thats not going to happen. if you feel that strongly about it, start with your own state's politicians.
As long as government at any level is involved, it can easily be manipulated by the party in power.
it should be mandated at the federal level.
You are ignoring the number of EC votes each state gets, smaller states are over-represented and larger are underrepresented as result people's votes in larger states are worth less.
I am not ignoring anything. The fact you don't understand the composition of the EC vote is not my issue.
The senate doesn't represent the people. It represents the state itself.
All states are equal so you can't count them as representing the people.
The house of reps is what represents the population. Smaller states only get one rep.
No they are not worth less. They are worth one vote in that state.
What you want to say is that the people of CA should weigh more than the people of ND.
that people of CA, NY should tell the rest of us how to vote. Is is exactly what the EC And the constitution
Prevents. It allows the people of CA vote their interest and people in other states to vote theirs.
But why are the opinions of those in North Dakota worth more when selecting the president?
Absent Gerrymandering, how do you propose that Congressional districts be drawn?
no thanks. they are the ones doing the gerrymandering. it's the same way in every state.
not if we only use census generated population density data to draw the districts. everyone who believes in democracy should oppose gerrymandering.
Why? The constitution gives that power to the states.
Which is how it should be. Why are you so against state sovereignty which is what this country
Was founded on.
Well I don’t believe in democracy, I believe in a constitutional republican so I’m not convinced by your argument
They aren't Last time I checked 53> 1
Which means if you have ca and nd if you win ca you win every time so why bother with nd.
Now if you look at the last election why should CA and NY dictate who is president to the other 48.
Last election CA cast more votes than 28 other states combined.
So you admit that you like the Electoral College because it gives the minority more influence over the Presidential Election not because more people agree with Conservative politics but rather Conservatives just spread themselves out better than the majority voters?
This is only an issue because Trump won. If that women had won, we would not have heard a peep.
But by doing that you basically saying that votes of Americans living in urban areas and more populous states counts less than those in rural America. Why should the minority of Americans be able to force their policies on the majority? Whether you like it or not the US is an urbanized country by a large margin and will only get bigger.
There's no reason the people of NYC should get to dictate how the people of Chillicothe, OH, get to live.
We live in a real federal republic. Almost no one else does, and it's baffling to them why we'd like it.
So why should the people in Chillicote and other like them get to decide how New Yorkers live?
They don't want to. They vote for people who favor less federal power, not more.
I just do not see a viable replacement for gerrymandering. Reapportionment is a necessity. And unless someone can come up with a viable way to accomplish reapportionment objectively and without partisan advantage, gerrymandering should remain. At least the it gives the advantage based on state legislative elections.
I just do not see a viable replacement for gerrymandering. Reapportionment is a necessity. And unless someone can come up with a viable way to accomplish reapportionment objectively and without partisan advantage, gerrymandering should remain. At least the it gives the advantage based on state legislative elections.
So partisan bull****, as long as the electoral college supports your guy.
Why is it okay for rural America to force Trump on New Yorkers but not so for New Yorkers to force Obama on rural America. Whether you like it or not who the president is affects all Americans and all Americans should have an equal say.
gerrymandering is cheating, and state control of drawing districts hasn't even approached solving the problem. therefore, districts should be drawn federally.
They do that is why they get 55 electorial votes. 53 of which represent the people of the state which is about 20% of the electoral votes needed to win.Because more than a tenth of all Americans are Californians. California should of course have a large say in who is president, it is their president too.
If you really want equal representation, one vote should be one vote regardless of the state you live in which means getting rid of the electoral college. Texas is also very heavily affected by this, they lose a lot of EC votes to the smaller states as well.
For California to have the representation they should, they need ~65 vs 55 current EC votes. Texas should have ~46 vs its current 38.
So why should the people in Chillicote and other like them get to decide how New Yorkers live?
So partisan bull****, as long as the electoral college supports your guy. Why is it okay for rural America to force Trump on New Yorkers but not so for New Yorkers to force Obama on rural America. Whether you like it or not who the president is affects all Americans and all Americans should have an equal say.
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?