Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The number of Senators and Representatives is fixed by the Constitution as is the existence of the Electoral College, two distinctly different issues. I believe the Electoral College should be eliminated by Amendment.
Actually the US Constitution no longer sets the number of representatives. The number is set by congress and I think it is capped at the current level by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Also how reapportionment is done has also changed.
The number of Senators and Representatives is fixed by the Constitution as is the existence of the Electoral College, two distinctly different issues. I believe the Electoral College should be eliminated by Amendment.
It's the only way it can be eliminated.
However, there doesn't actually seem much interest in doing so, probably because the New Hampshires and North Dakotas and Idahos would be even less worth candidates bothering with than they are now.
Very stupid process- a candidate can have more people vote for them and lose the election! It makes no sense. Why bother tryng to win states like Wyoming, when winning California is as good as 40 Wyomings?!
Because without the electoral system, winning California would be as good as winning 66 Wyomings.
The electoral college forces candidates to pay attention to states with small populations.
Because this what our founding fathers and founding states agreed to and put in the Constitution. Changing it would require a Constitutional amendment. What do the strict Constitutionalists say?
However, there doesn't actually seem much interest in doing so, probably because the New Hampshires and North Dakotas and Idahos would be even less worth candidates bothering with than they are now.
The National Popular Vote movement that has legislatures voiding the state's votes and going with whichever candidate wins the national popular vote when sufficient legislatures have passed this law to control the majority of electoral college votes essentially castrates the electoral college.
For instance, if Trump were to win the most votes in the national popular election, but in Massachusetts Clinton won, since Massachusetts is a party to this legislation, all of Massachusetts' electors would go to Trump. At this point, this movement is still short a few states, but it's getting closer.
The National Popular Vote movement that has legislatures voiding the state's votes and going with whichever candidate wins the national popular vote when sufficient legislatures have passed this law to control the majority of electoral college votes essentially castrates the electoral college.
For instance, if Trump were to win the most votes in the national popular election, but in Massachusetts Clinton won, since Massachusetts is a party to this legislation, all of Massachusetts' electors would go to Trump. At this point, this movement is still short a few states, but it's getting closer.
It would still result in Duster's observation above:
"Because without the electoral system, winning California would be as good as winning 66 Wyomings.
The electoral college forces candidates to pay attention to states with small populations."
The reality is that if you are a Republican in New York or California, your vote doesn't mean anything. That's because those states will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. Therefore the Democratic candidate will get all the electoral votes from that state every election. States that have a large minority population vote Democratic every time.
I disagree- why bother with states with a couple of electoral votes, when California or Texas are worth several other states?
And why bother with states with populations less than 5 million, when California or Texas have so many more people? Why bother visiting rural areas at all, since the numbers are in the cities? Why not promise the cities more resources for their schools, better transportation options, free internet, and then make the people in rural areas help pay for these things?
It would still result in Duster's observation above:
"Because without the electoral system, winning California would be as good as winning 66 Wyomings.
The electoral college forces candidates to pay attention to states with small populations."
What exactly do you think my position is?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
