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.
I disagree- why bother with states with a couple of electoral votes, when California or Texas are worth several other states?
I explained that. If you go by raw population numbers, sparsely-populated states will carry less weight, not more. The Electoral College makes it MORE likely that candidates will visit small states. Eliminate it and the candidates will focus on a half-dozen large states.
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?
Yes it would require amendment.
The electoral college was created in part because the slave states wanted to count the slaves even though they could not vote. This gave the slave states more representation than the direct vote. Non-slave states didn't like the idea so they compromised. Slave = 3/5 of a person.
From Article 1 of the Constitution
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Of course later amendments invalidated this so it can be changed again. However because it's so difficult to amend the constitution, I'm doubtful that enough states would agree to change it for the same reasons it was put in in the first place. Low population states would not agree.
As some of you know I don't vote & the reason why is because of the electoral college votes.
That's a lame reason not to vote.
You live in a federal republic. The Electoral College is part of the Checks & Balances in the three-way power-sharing arrangement between the federal government, the States and the People.
The time to change it was after the 2000 election. No one really pushed for it then.
So I have to wonder why, all of a sudden, it's coming up now.
A President being elected without a majority, nationally, of the popular vote has happened 4 times. That's it, 4.
The National Popular Vote initiative is inane. Think it through. We'll use the Massachusetts example. It votes for the Democratic candidate but a Republican wins the national vote so all of its EC votes goes there. What exactly would that accomplish?
I explained that. If you go by raw population numbers, sparsely-populated states will carry less weight, not more. The Electoral College makes it MORE likely that candidates will visit small states. Eliminate it and the candidates will focus on a half-dozen large states.
Exactly which is why I think the electoral college has it's merit's. It's the states that get to pick the president, not necessarily the majority of the voting public. We live in a Republic, not a direct democracy.
The "reason" for the electoral college has NOTHING to do with urban or rural and big states carrying more weight than smaller states.
They wanted to make a system where states were not simply casting their votes for their "native son". Back then it was not feasible to campaign in all 13 states. They assumed that if a Virginian were running, Virginia would vote for him without careful consideration of the other candidates. They set up an electoral college so that, in theory, the "college" would vote for the best candidate regardless of where he came from.
In fact, up until 1929 states were represented proportionately by population so that it reflected THE SAME WEIGHT as if it were a popular vote. The only difference being that ALL STATES got an extra 2 because of the the way the Senate is set up. So if California is 66 times bigger than the smallest state (WYOMING), then it would be 68 for CAL and 3 for Wyoming. With the cap set in 1929, they now have a set 435 seats available regardless of population, and they realign these seats based on the latest census.
THAT is what gives states like Wyoming a bit of an advantage over the old system. Today instead of it being 68-3, California only gets 55, while 3 is the minimum for each state so Wyoming can never have less than that.
It is actually a pretty decent system and as was mentioned earlier, if there is something that might be "fixed", we might look to things like "Winner take all" laws and laws that allow manipulation by the redrawing of districts.
You live in a federal republic. The Electoral College is part of the Checks & Balances in the three-way power-sharing arrangement between the federal government, the States and the People.
Sure, if you buy into the two party system & vote for one of them all the time then yeah your votes DOES count. As someone who understands that the two parties are the same then I am wasting my time. I vote for a third party & my vote ends up going to one of the two idiots. There are no checks & balances that's naïve thinking. It's like saying that the media isn't biased towards one party or the other. Sorry I'm not buying it.
If you don't like the system, change it, but you can't do that through apathy. If you want each person's vote to count, you have to elect congress people who are willing to tackle hard issues like amending the Constitution, it's not impossible. The problem is purging the political elite who like things just the way they are.
Sure, if you buy into the two party system & vote for one of them all the time then yeah your votes DOES count. As someone who understands that the two parties are the same then I am wasting my time.
Other than complaining on an internet forum, what are you doing about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowtired14
If you don't like the system, change it, but you can't do that through apathy. If you want each person's vote to count, you have to elect congress people who are willing to tackle hard issues like amending the Constitution, it's not impossible. The problem is purging the political elite who like things just the way they are.
Well said.
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.
