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 only problem with that is that it is absolutely untrue. The people who live in small states are mostly urban and a minority of the rural population. As an example their are vastly more rural folk in NY than in RI.
So basically we are giving urban people who live in small states a voting impact advantage over thus who don't. Why is that a good idea?
It's not strictly a matter of whether people live in rural areas or cities but whether the state overall is economically industrial/commercial or agricultural/raw material production, or whatever other factor is dominant on a state-wide basis. For instance, a state without ample fresh water as opposed to a state with an ample river running through it.
Remember that the Constitution was written as a federation of independent states--little nations--that would not have agreed to that federation if any of them felt its own interests as a state would not be heard. The Electoral College gives states more equal voice.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Trump is president and the republicans maintain majorities in both the senate and house. The voters spoke loudly that they don't want the democrats in charge.
LOL.
A plurality. I didn't vote for a single Republican, so don't try to lump everyone in the same boat!
8 years of Trump? You are just assuming he's going to be re-elected?!?!
Its a common statement, and past history would indicate that its a reasonable assumption.
But I suspect he might have a hard time of it as he has already started betraying his campaign promises. However....if he does a good job in other areas despite failing to meet the promises he made, he could still win a second term.
I don't follow your reasoning, how would people have voted differently?
For instance, if I were less enthusiastic, I might have
stayed home since Trump was sure to win my state.
I'm sure there were people who didn't bother to
vote if their state was a certainty for one candidate.
Gosh I vote in California and never felt like I was subjected to 'mob rule'. My neighbor voted for Trump, the day after the election we went to a BBQ at his house. But regarding the electoral college, you are mistaken about the intent of it, this you are incorrect about 'why' we have an electoral college, here you go:
"...Once the three-fifths compromise boosted slave state representation in the House, it was in their interests to push for legislative selection rather than a popular vote. They were joined by less-populous northern states, who feared that only candidates from the big states would ever win federal office." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...toral-college/
I did not make any statement regarding california.
James Hamilton, Alexis de Tocqueville, James Madison , and more, recorded their view on the danger of a pure democracy and spoke about worries about mob rule diminishing the representation of less populated states.
The problem is a few states are already deciding the election. Florida and Ohio. This country is so evenly divided, i doubt a state like California or New York alone would sway the election should we go by the popular vote. There would be Republican votes in California too. Their votes dont matter with the current electoral college because its winner take all. The popular vote would force the candidates to visit all states and address the needs of every state
Understood. Which is why Alexander Hamilton said about the electoral college, “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
One thing to note about the Electoral College is the majority of states did not use the winner takes all method we do now until 1824. Originally most States used a state legislature method, which as you might guess means the state legislature could choose electors however they wanted, sometimes using some input via popular vote (to provide a pool of choices) and sometimes not. Basically the States loved the Electoral College as a way to avoid letting the people choose.
There are in fact multiple ways the States can assign electors, even to this day if they so choose...
* winner takes all (current for most of the states)
* state legislature (state government officials choose electors however they deem)
* districts (electoral or congressional... Nebraska and Maine use the congressional district method, this results in them splitting their electors at times)
* proportional vote (candidates get a fairly accurate proportion of electors according to their win, like how some state primaries are handled)
By 1824 most states (though not all) had switched to winner takes all, most had been using state legislature, now all states use winner takes all except Maine and Nebraska. In 1823 Madison wrote a letter saying he though the preferred method at the Constitution Convention was districts (he had wanted popular vote but didn't get enough support for that).
Our current Electoral College winner takes all system is an odd bastard of what was intended.
The result is the battleground state votes are the only ones that matter. That means the majority of States, big or small, red or blue, don't matter. Some people say it empowers smaller states, no it doesn't. Florida is the third largest State yet a battleground state. Basically the current system only empowers split states with no planned or reasonable metric, it's completely arbitrary and makes absolutely no sense.
Personally I agree with James Madison and Trump, I'm for the popular vote. That would make every single persons vote equal to each others. I suspect that would help voter turnout as well since most people know their vote doesn't really count.... Though if you knew that no matter where you were, rural, urban, in the middle of nowhere, that your vote was equal to every other person in the Nation, well you'd be far more inclined to go out and vote.
We had a news story here on election day. A van full of admitted illegal aliens were arrested outside a polling place where not only did they admit that they'd come there to vote for Hillary--it was the 4th time they'd voted that day.
Voter ID. No illegals. No dead people.
Then we can talk fair elections.
But voter ID is bigoted as it favors the alive-honest-citizen.
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.
