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'm sure I'm missing something, but why does that accomplish something that a pure popular election wouldn't?
A popular vote removes power from small states and instead one only has to really run in California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Illinois and Florida to win. My proposal removes that as a candidate would need to visit as many states as possible and not create an undue emphasis on any group of state's.
It sure will leave rural voters out. City of New York would have more votes then the whole upper Midwest other then Minnesota. How is that fair. The system is just fine, leave it alone. Dems are just mad because Hillary lost. Just get a more moderate candidate and Dems would win. You are not going to win with a liberal left wing candidate as Trump win showed. I mean did people like Trump, no, but he was the alternative to Hilary which middle America and the south could not stand.
It is fair to the individual American citizen.
I can't talk about all Dems. But it is inaccurate to say that all of us who want to change to a popular vote do so because we wanted Hillary to win. That's really simplistic thinking, and no more accurate than saying that those who want it to remain as is only want it to stay the same because they're Trump supporters. I was against the EC when I learned about it in civics in junior high (in, BTW, a heavily Republican area and with a Republican family). I was against the EC when I began my voting life as a Republican. And I remain against the EC now as a Democrat.
No it would not prevent a swing state, but instead what it would do is neutralize the issue of a close race being all or nothing, at least in my proportional proposal (while not being subject to gerrymandering like In the congressional district proposal.) In a state like Florida, we can see for example 14 votes go to the Republican, 13 go to the Democrat and the rending two 2 would go to various independent or third party candidates, if the vote goes that way.
Have you researched the discussion had in the "all or nothing" states as to why each one settled on that system, or do you presume all those people are just evil and stupid?
Have you researched the discussion had in the "all or nothing" states as to why each one settled on that system, or do you presume all those people are just evil and stupid?
Why do result to putting words in people's mouths? That is a way to lose arguments. What I did do think because honestly we can have some 48 different replies are likely the current system is easy, so why change it. The real response is likely we have no political reason to change so why?
The problem with the idea that the states pick the president is if a state's system is flawed, it effects 49 other states. See Florida and the hanging Chad ballot from 2000. Hundreds if not thousands of votes were not counted due to chads. The difference between Bush and Gore in Florida was 0.0092%, that is in the thousands if not hundreds of votes that were cancelled. The state had issues and truly effected all 50 states. Tell me is that fair?
I would say the proportional electoral vote I suggest is a best of all worlds. Swing states are demphasozed and states like Texas, Arizona, California and New York might be visited by other parties to get out the vote rather than skipping them for battlegrounds.
Remove the cap on how many representatives we can elect to Congress.
That's the best solution. It makes representatives more answerable to the people. It minimizes the distortion in the electoral college.
How will having more of them make them more answerable to "the people?"
All of my congressional representatives have offices within a 10-minute drive of my house; I can just go over there.
How is having more of them going to make them any more answerable?
Because you are having them answer to fewer people. Because you are making it more expensive to lobby Congress as a whole. Because you are making it more difficult to corrupt Congress. Because it will make it more cost-effective to utilize technology and keep our representatives in their districts.
All three of your congressional representatives have offices within a 10-minute drive or your house? So what? What good is that if they are in DC rather than in their home districts?
Remove the cap on how many representatives we can elect to Congress.
That's the best solution. It makes representatives more answerable to the people. It minimizes the distortion in the electoral college.
No it won't. I agree with Ralph_Kirk on something here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
That "cap" is based on state population in the House--have more babies and you'll get more representatives--and each state has an equal two Senators.
Yep and to change that will require a constitutional amendment.
Quote:
How will having more of them make them more answerable to "the people?"
It wouldn't at all. Maybe just the perception. If anything it muddies the water even more.
Quote:
All of my congressional representatives have offices within a 10-minute drive of my house; I can just go over there.
I can't say that since my distinct stretches from the outskirts of the Phoenix suburbs to the western and northwestern borders of Arizona. In fact this district got gerrymandered when Arizona got a new district in 2012. Paul Gosar resides in Prescott. That office isn't a "10 minute drive" for me, more like an hour plus.
Quote:
How is having more of them going to make them any more answerable?
It don't at all. You and I both know that.
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.
