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.
Why should any citizens of any state have 4X the voting power of citizens of other states?
They shouldn't, it is an outdated system. At the very least they should be increasing the count of total representatives as the population increases and recalculating the number of representatives per state to capture an accurate ratio of the population of their respective states vs the overall population of the country.
Why should any citizens of any state have 4X the voting power of citizens of other states?
They shouldn't.
The federal government could do two things to make the problem less glaring:
Repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to state legislatures deciding on the senators instead of popular vote
VASTLY increase the size of the US House of Representatives
The states then simply choose how they will assign their EC votes. Done.
Here's the top three reasons none of this will ever happen:
Increasing the House means splitting the lobbyist money among more people, thus each rep gets less kickback cash, and we cannot have that, now can we?
Repealing the 17th Amendment makes senators more beholden to their state legislatures and the state lobbyists, and less beholden to K-Street. State lobbying has way less money than K-Street, so the senators would be getting less kickback cash, and we cannot have that, now can we?
One of the two parties will lose a lock on the whole bag of electoral votes if a state goes proportional instead of WTA, and we cannot have that, now can we?
The federal government could do two things to make the problem less glaring:
Repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to state legislatures deciding on the senators instead of popular vote
VASTLY increase the size of the US House of Representatives
The states then simply choose how they will assign their EC votes. Done.
Here's the top three reasons none of this will ever happen:
Increasing the House means splitting the lobbyist money among more people, thus each rep gets less kickback cash, and we cannot have that, now can we?
Repealing the 17th Amendment makes senators more beholden to their state legislatures and the state lobbyists, and less beholden to K-Street. State lobbying has way less money than K-Street, so the senators would be getting less kickback cash, and we cannot have that, now can we?
One of the two parties will lose a lock on the whole bag of electoral votes if a state goes proportional instead of WTA, and we cannot have that, now can we?
Basically my take as well.
At the time it was developed it made sense, they did not have the same tools we have now to be able to accurately data mine the information that is needed to create equal representation for each citizen, so they went with a system that was their best attempt to approximate it.
However, we never really changed the initial approximation as time passed and the concentration of people grew, thus over time the minor errors in what was probably a pretty reasonable attempt to make a representational system have been magnified. Can see similar error accumulation in some recursive algorithms: Start with a number that is pretty close but not quite accurate, the output can be good/usable for a large number of recursions, but after a large enough quantity of iterations the output will go off the rails and stop being useful.
great idea when there were 13 colonies, not so much today. The founding fathers could never have envisioned the westward expansion and territory gains.
why should one person in Wyoming have the same power it takes 137,000 people in Ohio?
it's so simple, one person, one vote, what are you scared of???
sorry. That is EXACTLY what the Founding fathers wanted.
the EC isn't an outdated relic of a strange 17th century past. The Founding Fathers saw it as a forward looking bulwark against such a day as we see today. They understood that true democracy was in fact Mob RULE... and he who controls the MOB Rules....
We are seeing that very thing taking place in America right now. we have mobs across the country raining terror down on various communities. handing them the power of a true democracy is a guaranteed end of democratic governance.
We are a representative republic on purpose. Thank God the Founding Fathers had the vision and understanding to work diligently to avoid direct democracy.
God help us if the uneducated masses get convinced of this nonsense.
The federal government could do two things to make the problem less glaring:
Repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to state legislatures deciding on the senators instead of popular vote
VASTLY increase the size of the US House of Representatives
The states then simply choose how they will assign their EC votes. Done.
Here's the top three reasons none of this will ever happen:
Increasing the House means splitting the lobbyist money among more people, thus each rep gets less kickback cash, and we cannot have that, now can we?
Repealing the 17th Amendment makes senators more beholden to their state legislatures and the state lobbyists, and less beholden to K-Street. State lobbying has way less money than K-Street, so the senators would be getting less kickback cash, and we cannot have that, now can we?
One of the two parties will lose a lock on the whole bag of electoral votes if a state goes proportional instead of WTA, and we cannot have that, now can we?
I actually agree with you on the 17th and on increasing the size of the House. I do not agree on proportional EC.
True Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Exactly! Easy to understand lesson on how true "democracy" works. Sounds fair right ? Two against one, so let's eat.
I also agree that our founders were pretty smart people, certainly not perfect, but a lot more intelligent than we can probable imagine in our current short term gain, I want it all and I want it now society we're evolved into.
The more we mess with things the more likely we are to create of lot of negative unintended consequences. Once you change things and go "oh ****, never thought of that", it's typically to late.
i think michael moore needs to go back to school and learn something about the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason3000
If the electoral college ends, it's the end of our Democracy & every state should be allowed to secede if they wish. No state would have joined the union if their voices were not going to be heard & make no mistake, that's exactly what this is. The left trying to disenfranchise voters who don't live in New York, California, Illinois, Florida & Texas.
exactly right!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
Bingo.
The electoral college isn't going anywhere, as 2/3 of the states would need to agree to the change.
Not happening.
as well as 2/3 of each house of congress, since it would require a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college.
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.
Basically my take as well.
