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.
What you are experiencing is called diversity.
Racial diversity, cultural diversity.
When living cheek-by-jowl in the great melting pot, it trends toward liberalism.
FYI, the modern form of liberalism is opposed to the "melting pot" idea. They even deny there is such a thing as "American."
FYI, the modern form of liberalism is opposed to the "melting pot" idea. They even deny there is such a thing as "American."
Standard right wing technique. They tell the left what it believes. Most of course is right wing myth as is this one. The left is not opposed to "America" or "melting pot". Of course there may be some radical lefty who opposes either but no the left wing does this only in the biased mines of the RW.
FYI, the modern form of liberalism is opposed to the "melting pot" idea. They even deny there is such a thing as "American."
The reality of living in NYC is that you can't do very well if you go around with an attitude that is intolerant of others. You'd be one lonely and unhappy person if you got upset that the people on the train weren't all speaking English.
Or weren't all Christains.
Since urbanites experience and are surrounded by different people from different places, it trends toward tolerance and liberalism.
OK, folks. If you have something to say about the Electoral College, specifically why the Founders created it, or more generally, about the Electoral College in History, feel free to make your post.
If you want to talk about political parties, the 2016 election, conservatives vs. liberals, etc., City-Data has forums for Current Events and Politics. Feel free to make use of them while we talk about History here.
The reality that states put up Referenda questions on the ballot contradict this.
Secondly, why shouldn't major population centers make those decisions based on their numbers?
They are the engines of the economy and the sources of so much of our tax money.
I don't see a very strong reason their votes should count for less?
One man one vote, can't be any simpler.
There needs to be ample consideration for less populous areas...urban needs are not the same as more rural needs. It's not just that one person is one vote - it's the specific needs based on concentrated populations that may not serve at all those people in other areas.
Lets look at this map. Use your mouse to enlarge the map, and it goes to county vote. You can drag it around by click and drag to see all parts. Put the mouse on any county, and you will see below the map the count in each county in the country. Note even in states the Democrats won such as California, look at the more rural counties that Trump won. Clinton and the Republicans won big city votes, especially those with a large minority population. The majority of the country, was won by Trump with Clinton winning only very small parts of it by size, just by winning the big city, minority vote.
How can anyone think it would be an advantage to the country as a whole, to let only a few big cities elect the president from now on, and let them run rough shod over the rest of the people who would lose any control of their lives.
The electoral college, at least levels the playing field, and the whole country has a voice in how the country is run.
There are many things that the other 90% of he country differs in their opinions of how things should run, and to let the big cities rule everything that happens, would soon eliminate the need to hold elections. Just let the Democratic Party appoint the president. And from then on, the big cities would be telling the rest of the country to change and think exactly like they think. And there would no longer be any need to treat the rural areas as equals, as they no longer would be. All benefits would go to the big cities, and just a few states. A new form of Dictatorship.
The Electoral College was created for us to be a Democracy, and keep it from becoming a Dictatorship ruled by a few big cities.
I think the real reasons are simple partisan.
The Electoral College has benefited the Republican party twice now.
Hence, their supporters want to keep it.
Had the roles been reversed, they would be loudest to abolish it.
Could you imagine the outcry from Trump supporters if he won the popular vote but lost the election?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperL
If you live long enough, you'll find that what might be good for those in New York won't work at all for those in Texas. What works for a Kalifornian may not work at all for a Florida person. The electoral college evens the playing field between the high density populations of these large cities versus the folks living in the country. A Kalifornian may want no animals allowed over 50 lbs and make it law, and considering its now law about cow farts in Kalifornia, it's not only possible but likely. That won't work in Texas where we grow the beef you eat. So it can get stupid quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
To liberal progressives, that would be just fine. Not because they actually believe millions of people condensed in a few places should make decisions for the entire country. No, it is because currently most of those people think like liberals do.
Can you imagine if most people in urban hell holes with the unique problems that come with living there (compared with most of the country) were conservative minded?
Then, the liberals would be screaming how unfair it is.
That is the problem with many liberals, in that they act like children, wanting what suits them now, but ignoring, or not caring about the unintended consequences.
Here is a video that explains why the FF's created the EC for our constitutional republic;
We must not be doing a very good job in teaching our children these days, as I learned all this stuff back in Middle & High school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baconisgood
Because states with huge populations would always elect the president. You do realize that if popular vote was the way we elected a president one would only have to campaign in a few big population states leaving the rest without any chance of being fairly represented? In order to balance the inequity of populations, the smaller states insisted on it so they would have a more equal voice. Why else would they want to join such a union?
Umm, the small states already don't really decide the election. How does the electoral college benefit Wyoming in Montana?
Like another poster said, keep the 2 senators per state and scrap the electoral college.
A popular vote based system would also encourage everyone everywhere to rock the vote.
It's not like every state votes the same time anyway, New York went red for Reagan and West Virginia went blue for Bill Clinton.
The 2 elections of the 1990s are so weird to me, A Democrat managed to carry a bunch of states that are thought of as being solidly Republican, and the Third Party candidate actually got quite a few votes.
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.
