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.
How much do voters from the most populous county of your state influence election outcomes for your state?
For instance take a look at Oregon. Oregon is known to be one of the most liberal states in the US, however the moment you take Multnomah County (Portland's county) out of the picture, the picture changes drastically.
State
Jay Inslee: 1,760,520 (54.39%)
Bill Bryant: 1,476,346 (45.61%)
King County
Jay Inslee: 677,943 (67.69%)
Bill Bryant: 321,242 (32.07%)
With out King county
Jay Inslee: 1,082,577 (48.38%)
Bill Bryant: 1,155,104 (51.62%)
If it was not for King county, Washington would have a republican governor.
What are your thoughts on having one county having such a huge sway on election results? Do you think it's fair? What are some other states that have one county that has the power of changing election results?
Everyone holds up that if not for the Electoral College Hillary would be President because she won the popular vote by 2-3 million. Ok if we removed NYC and a few very liberal cities in California I wager she would have lost the popular vote as well.
Imagine NYC deciding an election. It is such a small part of a good sized state.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Everyone holds up that if not for the Electoral College Hillary would be President because she won the popular vote by 2-3 million. Ok if we removed NYC and a few very liberal cities in California I wager she would have lost the popular vote as well.
Imagine NYC deciding an election. It is such a small part of a good sized state.
Thank goodness for the Electoral college.
I dont understand why you conservatives try to make the above argument.
When liberals talk about reforming the electoral college, they are talking about changing the way we count votes, where as you are arguing that we should pretend people dont exist.
How is it that you dont understand the difference ???????
Everyone holds up that if not for the Electoral College Hillary would be President because she won the popular vote by 2-3 million. Ok if we removed NYC and a few very liberal cities in California I wager she would have lost the popular vote as well.
Imagine NYC deciding an election. It is such a small part of a good sized state.
Thank goodness for the Electoral college.
Why shouldn't NYC have more influence, if there are more people there? If we only counted rural areas and ignored the cities, I'm sure Trump would have won, but why should someone have less of a say in government because they live in a denser area?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
If it was not for King county, Washington would have a republican governor.
What are your thoughts on having one county having such a huge sway on election results? Do you think it's fair? What are some other states that have one county that has the power of changing election results?
County is a geographical area, the people in it are what decide the elections, you can not remove 2 million people.
What could possibly be unfair about it? The law is one man, one vote. If 100% of a state's population lived in a single city, then that city would be responsible for 100% of the influence, but ... so what? That's where the people live. Should places that have no population have any influence?
What could possibly be unfair about it? The law is one man, one vote. If 100% of a state's population lived in a single city, then that city would be responsible for 100% of the influence, but ... so what? That's where the people live. Should places that have no population have any influence?
People vote, not acres.
I'm just putting the question out there, especially since on a national level we have electoral college (to protect small states from big ones) then wouldn't it stand to reason that on a state level an electoral college is needed (to protect small counties from larger ones), or if the popular vote is fair on a state level, why not on a federal level?
This is the exact reason the Founding Fathers crafted the Electoral College as a means of electing the President.
Even is the 1780s, it was completely obvious to the framers of the Constitution that, in the matter of electing a President, the direct popular vote would leave rural interests completely subject to the flighty whims of those in the more populous urban centers.
The relation between the federal government and the states is a federation (meaning that the states are semi-sovereign entities).
The relation between the state governments and the local governments (city, county, etc.) are unitary (meaning that those jurisdictions exist only because the states allowed their creation, and have only the powers that the state governments give to them).
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.
