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.
People need to remember that we are not a straight-up democracy, but a republic. If the Electoral College is done away with, you might as well dissolve the nation. We are the United States of America. No one state has a right to dictate to other states because it has more people. That is why the Electoral College is structured as it is and why the government itself is structured as it is, hence why we have the House, which responds to the immediate needs of the people as each state's number of representatives is based on their population, and then the Senate, which is to consider the longer-term ramifications of legislation, where each state gets two senators regardless of population size. Otherwise, California and New York would pretty much dictate the national agenda. California and New York would be the locomotives and everyone else would just be a train car getting pulled along.
Terms like the "popular will" and the "popular vote" are IMO oversimplifications. If you had a population of 40 million people, consisting of 30 million racist whites and 10 million blacks, and the 30 million whites thus voted for Jim Crow-style laws, is that the "will" of the people? Is that the "popular vote?"
Another thing to remember is the House. As said, the House to a degree reflects the "popular will," if you will. Yet, even though the popular vote went to Hillary, the House remained Republican. Now I believe that the House is who ultimately approves of the Electoral College vote. The House could choose to reject the Electoral College vote if they desired. If the House had gone Democrat, along with Hillary winning the popular vote, then one could make a stronger argument that the system acted really screwy and maybe the election really should be given to her. But instead, the House not only remained Republican, but they gained control of four additional seats. The Senate also remained Republican, and two of the GOP Senators who lost (Nevada and Kelly Ayotte), had they supported Trump instead of disavowing him, might have kept their seats too.
That the House came under even stronger GOP control I think undermines any argument that because the popular vote went for Hillary, that the Electoral College should vote for her.
This is the ranking of dependence on federal spending:
STATES RANKED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCE
10 Most Dependent:
1 Mississippi-TRUMP<--Most dependent state
2 New Mexico-CLINTON
3 Alabama-TRUMP
4 Louisiana-TRUMP
5 Tennessee-TRUMP
6 Montana-TRUMP
7 South Dakota-TRUMP
8 Kentucky-TRUMP
9 West Virginia-TRUMP
10 Missouri-TRUMP
.
.
10 Least Dependent:
41 New York-CLINTON
42 New Hampshire-CLINTON
43 Minnesota-CLINTON
44 Nevada-CLINTON
45 Illinois-CLINTON 46 California-CLINTON
47 Kansas-TRUMP
48 New Jersey-CLINTON
49 Connecticut-CLINTON
50 Delaware-CLINTON<--Least dependent state
It's a fact: 14 of the 18 states that carry this entire country on their backs voted for Hillary Clinton!
It's quite amazing that many in the more dependent states are often talking about those 'takers' and 'leeches' but don't see any irony in it. They also bring up "free stuff" and Obama supporters. Yet the dependent state residents probably get a lot of that "free stuff."
Why would a political activist who's dedicated to a particular party decide to go against political tradition and the will of the constituents? And by my calculations you'd have to have 37 Electors for the Republican Party change their votes to force a deciding vote by the US House, or 38 to give Clinton the seat outright. That's a lot. That's not going to happen.
This is the ranking of dependence on federal spending:
STATES RANKED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCE
10 Most Dependent:
1 Mississippi-TRUMP<--Most dependent state
2 New Mexico-CLINTON
3 Alabama-TRUMP
4 Louisiana-TRUMP
5 Tennessee-TRUMP
6 Montana-TRUMP
7 South Dakota-TRUMP
8 Kentucky-TRUMP
9 West Virginia-TRUMP
10 Missouri-TRUMP
.
.
.
10 Least Dependent:
41 New York-CLINTON
42 New Hampshire-CLINTON
43 Minnesota-CLINTON
44 Nevada-CLINTON
45 Illinois-CLINTON 46 California-CLINTON
47 Kansas-TRUMP
48 New Jersey-CLINTON
49 Connecticut-CLINTON
50 Delaware-CLINTON<--Least dependent state
It's quite amazing that many in the more dependent states are often talking about those 'takers' and 'leeches' but don't see any irony in it. They also bring up "free stuff" and Obama supporters. Yet the dependent state residents probably get a lot of that "free stuff."
Building a federal highway, national park, or a military base isn't exactly giving away free stuff to the poor.
They've always been very pro socialists until they find out the money will come out of their pockets.
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.
Yikes - voters petitioning EC to change their votes!
