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.
Swing states are determined by population and how closely they are split between urban and rural. Just because there are 10 or so States that are considered swing States today does not mean that will be the case by the next Census.
Granted, the small populated States will never have much of a say in any presidential election, but neither should the large populated States dominate any presidential election and disenfranchise the rest of the nation. The Electoral College provides that balance.
For example. California has a population of 37,691,912, while Alaska has a population of 722,718. That is a ratio of 52 Californians for every Alaskan. California has 55 Electoral College votes, and Alaska has 3. That is a ratio of 18 Californian Electoral College votes for every Alaskan Electoral College vote.
California still has more say in determining a President than Alaska, naturally, but only by a ratio of 18 to 1 instead of 52 to 1. The Electoral College not only functions as an equalizer between urban and rural within a given State, it also functions as an equalizer between the small and large populated States.
First I disagree with your premise that swing state have closely split urban/rural populations. Most swing states have very large suburban populations which makes them swing and as such often said swing states are disproportionately urbanized. In Pennsylvania it is the Philadelphia suburbs, Nevada has the Las Vegas suburbs, Michigan has the Detroit suburbs and Colorado has the Denver area suburbs. That is what makes swing states swing.
Secondly small population does not mean rural. It is interesting you bring up Alaska, because despite its population and geographic area it is actually a very urbanized state with about half of its population living in the Anchorage metropolitan area. Additionally there are several other 3 or 4 electoral vote states/places that are highly urban. The most notable of these is the District of Columbia which while being 100% urban actually has an even lower ratio of people per electoral vote then Alaska.
Considering that it is the State legislatures that determine the Electors sent to the Electoral College, are you calling the State legislatures the "economic elite?"
There is plenty of reasons why the President should not be elected by direct popular vote. The Electoral College balances out the urban and rural areas of a given State. Without the Electoral College only those who live in the major cities would be able to determine the President. Considering that the major cities overwhelmingly vote Democrat, while the overwhelming majority of rural voters vote for Republicans, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that only Democrats advocate for the Electoral College to be abolished in order to disenfranchise the rest of the nation.
However, the biggest reason is that it would take away the power from the State legislatures to determine the President. Considering that any amendment to the US Constitution would require the ratification of 38 of those same State legislatures, it is highly unlikely that the States would voluntarily give up their constitutionally protected sole authority to determine the President.
I don't know states give up their authority all the time to the federal government.
Well, if you live in Wyoming, this is a horrible idea, if you live in California, it's a great idea. I personally don't think it's very fair that my vote is worth less than someone else's - doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Well, if you live in Wyoming, this is a horrible idea, if you live in California, it's a great idea. I personally don't think it's very fair that my vote is worth less than someone else's - doesn't sound very democratic to me.
The Electoral College was never intended to be democratic. It was intended to give the States the ability to determine how a President is elected. The States can concoct any manner they want to determine their Electors to the Electoral College. If they want to flip a coin, they can constitutionally. In 1824 the States decided to use the popular vote as a means to determine the Electors, and it has been that way ever since. The States can abolish the popular vote and choose any other method they want to determine their Electors. It is entirely up to each State.
The Electoral College was never intended to be democratic. It was intended to give the States the ability to determine how a President is elected. The States can concoct any manner they want to determine their Electors to the Electoral College. If they want to flip a coin, they can constitutionally. In 1824 the States decided to use the popular vote as a means to determine the Electors, and it has been that way ever since. The States can abolish the popular vote and choose any other method they want to determine their Electors. It is entirely up to each State.
I don't think you understand how the electoral college works - every state gets two for their senators, and the rest is based on population. As a result, a state like Wyoming with a very low population has more say per capita than a state with a large population, like California.
It is irrevelent how California divies up it's electoral votes.
I don't particularly care what it was intended to be, because it is an anachronism, the federal government today plays a vastly larger role in our lives than it did at the inception of this country, therefore everyone should have an equal say in who runs the federal government.
I agree. Let the people decide by popular vote. After all, this is our country and we should decide who we want in our government.
why not go for a true democracy(you wouldnt need a president) where EVERYTHING is based on majority vote, no need for congress either..just have everyone vote
btw it worked so well in Cali for the law of samesex marriage with the popular vote,,,didnt it (prop 8)
No with the electoral college swing states win, everyone else loses. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are not particularly rural, they are in fact quite urban, but they are the ones deciding the election not North Dakota, or Kansas. If you abolish the electoral college a vote in Kansas would be roughly equal to a vote in Ohio which is very much not the case now.
Lucky for me I live in one of the 10 or so chosen states that will decide the election. The other 80% of the country is already pretty much spoken for thanks to the electoral college.
thats because the PEOPLE of the state vote decidingly for one party or another all the time.
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.
