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 read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm well aware of how it came to be. The country has changed a great deal in over 200 years. Rural voters are dramatically overrepresented just like the Second Amendment is no longer about muskets.
They are overrepresented largely due to the fact that even the smallest states (population wise) have two US senators, which goes to a state's electoral college count. However, even if you were to make the electoral college more representative of a state's population (i.e. by removing the two EC votes accounted for/linked by the US senator representation in each state and only going based off of rough house member representation), I don't think it would've made a difference. Thus, people seem to be complaining about something that is really inconsequential when you really think about it IMO.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
They are overrepresented largely due to the fact that even the smallest states (population wise) have two US senators, which goes to a state's electoral college count. However, even if you were to make the electoral college more representative of a state's population (i.e. by removing the two EC votes accounted for/linked by the US senator representation in each state and only going based off of rough house member representation), I don't think it would've made a difference. Thus, people seem to be complaining about something that is really inconsequential when you really think about it IMO.
248 to 192 if you remove the Senators. Closer race, but still not representative of the people. Again, It's a flawed system
248 to 192 if you remove the Senators. Closer race, but still not representative of the people. Again, It's a flawed system
Of course, if you remove the senators, 248 would still be more than enough to win the White House. This is the reason why I have a problem with people bringing up the "Wyoming is massively over-represented" argument as, controlling for a more representative model by just assigning electors based on the much more representative House allocations, Trump would've still won. Note, under my system, states like Montana would be underrepresented, but I doubt you'd hear them complaining about it as its not making much of a difference one way or the other!
I will concede that my method is still not completely representative, but the only way to get fully representative is to go to a national popular vote (which many people want). But, given that we do not live in a country where sovereignty is held by a single national government (the states formed the federal government and share sovereignty over the country with it), I do not support such a move.
Interestingly, even if enough states sign onto the compact to make it workable, it would probably still need congressional approval as a compact between states.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Of course, if you remove the senators, 248 would still be more than enough to win the White House. This is the reason why I have a problem with people bringing up the "Wyoming is massively over-represented" argument as, controlling for a more representative model by just assigning electors based on the much more representative House allocations, Trump would've still won. Note, under my system, states like Montana would be underrepresented, but I doubt you'd hear them complaining about it as its not making much of a difference one way or the other!
I will concede that my method is still not completely representative, but the only way to get fully representative is to go to a national popular vote (which many people want). But, given that we do not live in a country where sovereignty is held by a single national government (the states formed the federal government and share sovereignty over the country with it), I do not support such a move.
Interestingly, even if enough states sign onto the compact to make it workable, it would probably still need congressional approval as a compact between states.
It works to protect the States with smaller populations and allows them to have a say.
Should the EC be dis-banned, I believe either a new civil war would happen or the US would split and new nations would be formed.
From a historical perspective, that is exactly what I am thinking.
The Electoral College helps protect the Presidential election from fraud in any one state. Or if it does happen, the voter fraud is limited to just that one state, say California or Illinois.
If we ever switched to some kind of popular vote system, the fraud that could be committed by California, with a population approaching 40 million, is game changing.
And point blank I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT OF CALIFORNIA. Nor do I trust the government of Illinois, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York City, Chicago, San Francisco or any other place infested by Tammany Hall vote buying politicians.
its a socialist/communist movement being pushed by the Nazi George soros, who looks to destroy the USA
you do understand that this nation is a union of 50 sovereign states....going 'national', will erode the sovereignty of the 50 states... making it that there is no need for governors... too include the western states of California, and Arizona, etc.....do you really think the people of California want to give up their governorship?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
I don't...
its a socialist/communist movement being pushed by the Nazi George soros, who looks to destroy the USA
you do understand that this nation is a union of 50 sovereign states....going 'national', will erode the sovereignty of the 50 states... making it that there is no need for governors... too include the western states of California, and Arizona, etc.....do you really think the people of California want to give up their governorship?
That's not right at all. Other western countries have states, with their own state governments, and have popular votes (and are not socialist/communist).
And btw, Goerge Soros was not a Nazi. He was a child during World War II. He was only 14 years old when the war ended. Stop listening to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones
That's not right at all. Other western countries have states, with their own state governments, and have popular votes (and are not socialist/communist).
And btw, Goerge Soros was not a Nazi. He was a child during World War II. He was only 14 years old when the war ended. Stop listening to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones
In all fairness liberals say the same things about Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers and Robert Mercier.
Just know You can’t reason with crazy. If someone believes these people are all Nazis, there isn’t much that can be done for them.
From a historical perspective, that is exactly what I am thinking.
The Electoral College helps protect the Presidential election from fraud in any one state. Or if it does happen, the voter fraud is limited to just that one state, say California or Illinois.
If we ever switched to some kind of popular vote system, the fraud that could be committed by California, with a population approaching 40 million, is game changing.
Assuming there was any proof to back up your statement, a middle-of-the-road solution is for states to allocate their electoral vote proportionally. Right now, your supposedly corrupt CA already runs up the score by simply getting to allocate all 55 EV to Democrats. If it was proportional, maybe it would go 33-22 or something instead.
We don't send our senators or house representatives as "all or nothing" from a state, I can't see why electors being proportional by way of the state popular vote is a big deal.
If I were a Democrat I would too but there is no way Republicans or small states like Wyoming are going to support that, so it really doesn't matter.
Last edited by American Expat; 05-15-2018 at 11:36 PM..
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.
