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 rub however is that the electoral college is not correctable. Takes 13 states with less than 10% of the population to block an amendment. And they would certainly do so.
Ne serious person is trying to eliminate the Electoral College at this point. What's under discussion is the means by which electors are chosen at the state level, The Constitution leaves all of that process to the states to decide for themselves.
I can see small states being favored but it took a collective of small states to beat bigger states which seems fair.
Hillary didn't lose to rural states, she lost many quite populated small states. So I don't think she can complain that much when she lose states like FL, PA, OH, and many other states that used to be the Blue Wall states.
Most of her supporters never bother to look in depth which states switched their vote to red this time. Not only picking Trump but picked the GOP for Senators and house reps.
What gives Hillary the right to say she won the popular vote when 2/3 of the country voted for Trump.
Two-thirds of the country didn't vote for Trump. States and land masses aren't living human beings. Only living human beings can vote. As of today 47.9% of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton and 47.2% voted for Donald Trump. That translates into about a 1,000,000 popular vote margin for Hillary Clinton.
In what kind of an election does the person with fewer votes than his opponent win? Answer: In the American presidential election.
I agree the Constitution, as written, makes Donald Trump the President. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. As an American, I am proud of much in my country. I am not proud of that Eighteenth Century anachronism we call the Electoral College.
No, because a true democracy is mob rule. The USA has almost no qualifications to gain the right to vote which creates additional issues.
And once the large cities learned that they could vote for a living the rest of the nation that produces their food would dry up. Once the food stops coming into the big cities it will be a bad day for a lot of people.
We are almost there now were we have vote for a living mob rule. Hopefully Trump can start to reverse the process because this last election was way too close for comfort. If the low IQ lay abouts keep breeding then we will be on an irreversible path to true second world status which will be sad.
The fact that the election was not a land slide shows that there are a large number of people willing to vote in an inept person who is very probably a criminal so that they can keep their hand outs coming.
People are scared and they should be because the hand outs are possibly going away and the days of morons being taken seriously and having a voice at the "table" will also hopefully go away. People who cant make rational arguments or who revert to flag burning and temper tantrums should have no voting rights and no power to affect any changes.
I can see your logic in stating that many voted just to keep their "benefits," Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, the banksters, and a whole lot of other government teat sucking types who voted for---Oh wait, they actually voted for BOTH parties, there's a ton of welfare queens out there in the country clubs of America, but of course your bias is showing...
No. It was not. The intent was a group of elected wise men to choose the President.
And it favors small states not rural ones. In fact all the states except Maine are majority urban. So you are giving urban folk in small states more voting power than urban people in large states. One thing to note is that NY and CA have larger rural populations than a handful of small states.
The rub however is that the electoral college is not correctable. Takes 13 states with less than 10% of the population to block an amendment. And they would certainly do so.
I doubted what I bolded, but you are absolutely right. (I tried to copy the link, but it is an Excel file, but if you Google Rural vs. Urban Popultion by State, you will find it. Btw, you may might note Mississippi in 2010 was also more rural, although I doubt if it is now.) I've been to Wyoming many times, and its largest city is Cheyenne with a population of only about 63,000 people, and I just could not believe that it is considered more urban than rural (ditto for Allaska, Vermont, Nebraska, Kansas, etc.).
The problem (or issue) is how the U.S. government defines urban. Basically if there are more than 2,500 people living in one of their designated blocks, that block is considered urban. So, if one lives in a densely populated area, even if it is in a small town, that person is considered to be living in an urban area.* In short, "urban" is not necessarily the same as "big city". https://www.census.gov/geo/reference...ural-2010.html.
The point is that, according to the 2016 election map by county that has been posted elsewhere many times, people who don't live in BIG cities were much more likely to vote for Trump than for Clinton; and there are still more people who don't live in big cities versus those who do.
*If I am wrong about that or anything else that I presented as fact, please correct me.
Doing away with the Electoral College would definitely leave it up to voters in the Metropolitan areas. Those living in my county could just as well stay home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocares811
I truly does not think this would be the case, as I pointed out in a previous post (with link) that the combined number of people living in the 50 most populous cities now totals about 50 million people, or less than one-sixth the total population of the U.S. I also pointed out that included in this list of the 50 most populous cities are places like Omaha, Nebraska -- which isn't exactly Los Angeles!
DATA aside I stick with my original statement. I live in lower Delaware.(agriculture / vacation area) The voters in the 2 lower counties went Republican. The voters in the heavier populated northern went Democratic. Democrats got all of our Electoral votes plus the Governor's and Congressman. Delaware being a small state only has 3 counties.
Two-thirds of the country didn't vote for Trump. States and land masses aren't living human beings. Only living human beings can vote. As of today 47.9% of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton and 47.2% voted for Donald Trump. That translates into about a 1,000,000 popular vote margin for Hillary Clinton.
In what kind of an election does the person with fewer votes than his opponent win? Answer: In the American presidential election.
I agree the Constitution, as written, makes Donald Trump the President. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. As an American, I am proud of much in my country. I am not proud of that Eighteenth Century anachronism we call the Electoral College.
Given that there are millions of children of illegal immigrants born in the 80s and 90s who are now eligible to vote, your post is a great example of the impact the illegal immigration has had on our elections, and why changing the electoral process would be bad.
The states that are reliably "red" are also the most likely to receive more FROM the government than what they send back to Washington in taxes. In other words...liberals hand out money to conservatives.
Your idea is sound that the Government sends more money to these states. The problem is that the money is not for aid though. Many use total federal funds spent in a state, take the cash amount and say, look, red states take more than they give. The problem with that is what the money is used for.
When the numbers are dished out they include Social Security, Medicare spending, Defense Spending. None of those items is welfare. The largest expenditure is Defense spending. Welfare spending is only about 10% of the budget.
So what happens when we take away everything that is not welfare, meaning who are the moochers and who are the people footing the bill.
My state of California has 12% of the nation. One third of all Welfare cases are from California.
Looking at welfare alone and not other socialistic programs, just welfare, you find that Democratic states have the most moochers.
Given that there are millions of children of illegal immigrants born in the 80s and 90s who are now eligible to vote, your post is a great example of the impact the illegal immigration has had on our elections, and why changing the electoral process would be bad.
Frankly, there are some posts that just shouldn't be written and this is one of them. It speaks volumes.
The children of illegal immigrants born in the USA are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment whether you like it or not.
I do occasionally hear some semi-respectable arguments in favor of keeping the electoral college. Perhaps, I don't give enough credence to the small state/large state issue. However, arguing that we shouldn't decide elections based on a popular vote because of a minority group or minority groups is racist. There is no other way to put it.
Its becoming clearer to me as I read these posts that a group of people in this country really wants rule by a minority. Presumably, that minority is comprised of white, property owning, conservative-minded people. That is not a respectable argument for keeping the electoral college it is something else.
Its becoming clearer to me as I read these posts that a group of people in this country really wants rule by a minority. Presumably, that minority is comprised of white, property owning, conservative-minded people. That is not a respectable argument for keeping the electoral college it is something else.
We already have rule by a minority.
57.9 per cent of America's 231 million eligible voters voted. That would be about 133 million people who actually voted. The population of the United States is about 324 million. Thus, approximately 41% of the US population chose our President.
What is most significant is that the election was decided by people motivated enough to actually get off their rumps and vote. Race, property status and political philosophy are secondary, unless you are implying that liberal non-caucasians lack ambition -- which would be a very bigoted point if view.
Frankly, there are some posts that just shouldn't be written and this is one of them. It speaks volumes.
The children of illegal immigrants born in the USA are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment whether you like it or not.
I do occasionally hear some semi-respectable arguments in favor of keeping the electoral college. Perhaps, I don't give enough credence to the small state/large state issue. However, arguing that we shouldn't decide elections based on a popular vote because of a minority group or minority groups is racist. There is no other way to put it.
Its becoming clearer to me as I read these posts that a group of people in this country really wants rule by a minority. Presumably, that minority is comprised of white, property owning, conservative-minded people. That is not a respectable argument for keeping the electoral college it is something else.
I fully understand and never question the fact that they are US citizens.
I also understand that they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. I also know based on my life experience that a very large proportion of these first generation Americans from illegal immigrant families are ill educated, poor, and easily manipulated by demagogue politicians.
Therefore, I don't see the reason to change the law in such a way that would make it highly desirable for the Democrats to increase the illegal immigration in this country so that 30 years later they had a guaranteed overwhelming majority of popular vote for decades.
Just like I am sure many Democrat supporters would greatly oppose a plan to flood the country with millions of conservative White immigrants from Europe or South Africa, in order to boost the Conservative voter base.
You don't have to dislike any group of people to realize that it's never a good idea to make a law that encourages either party from artificially boosting their supporter numbers through immigration. Which is precisely what changing to a popular vote based election system would lead to.
It's very easy to start throwing the accusations of racism around instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion. Which seems to be the preferred method employed by the leftists - deny their opponents the right to voice their opinions by immediately calling them racist, sexist, deplorable subhumans.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 11-17-2016 at 05:49 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.
Those living in my county could just as well stay home.
