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.
No, the EC was set up when there wasn't widespread access to information and the majority of the population couldn't read. It is obsolete, as both of those obstacles have been corrected
You have already offed yourself in this topic by telling us the MP of the UK was elected by the popular vote.
I smell desperation.
FWIW - America was never intended to be a "democracy" - even an indirect one.
A democracy is horrid, where a majority can legally oppress a minority.
. . .
In the original design, only the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES was to be elected in a popular election.
Not the Senate.
Not the Executive.
Not the Judiciary.
. . .
But thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define a republican form of government, its source and origin.
(No, it's not synonymous with republic nor is it a "constitutional republic.")
. . .
Electoral College - not what you thought http://www.city-data.com/forum/46451320-post85.html
Why can't Electoral College defenders articulate themselves?
I note that none of my posts below have received responses, which is quite telling. I'm astounded at the utter inability of posters to articulate why the Electoral College system is more fair than the popular vote in presidential elections. See the below posts that have received zero substantive responses.
Come on, let's hear the argument.
Post #164
in response to rbohm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian
Why don't you articulate a logical basis for why you believe what you believe without simply pointing to a document? I don't mean that in a snarky way, it's just that it simply hasn't been done in this thread on the pages I've read.
What do you mean you don't own enough of Congress? It's ridiculous that both Wyoming and California have 2 senators representing them in Congress when Wyoming's entire population is equal to that of Fresno. Below are the populations for each state.
Wyoming - 0.6 million (rounded up)
California - 39.5 million (rounded down)
That's not enough of a check on the majority for you? You want the electoral college too, which renders a Wyoming citizen equal to 3.7 Californians?
I've yet to see a coherent reason for why a President shouldn't be directly elected. Explain to me why not, and I'll provide a rebuttal if I'm unpersuaded. But please don't resort to empty rhetoric about the Founders because it doesn't actually say anything.
Post #229
In response to a post by Ringwise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian
No, we'd like each of our votes to count the exact same. Not all of us who live in cities are part of one hive mind that votes together. We're each individuals who deserve an equal say in who becomes President.
Why should one person's vote ever be worth more than another person?
In response to a post by workingclasshero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian
If you truly value "equality" as you say, and a "true democracy" that will "deal with the will of the people", then what is wrong with one man, one vote? Why support the Electoral College? I'm ok with each state having 2 senators, as it represents a check on the majority. Each state also democratically elects their senators. However, since we have that in place, we shouldn't also have the Electoral College. Why can't we directly elect the President the way we do members of Congress? Please explain.
If you want the Electoral College fine, but then larger states like CA, NY, TX, and FL should be able to elect a greater number of senators than the small states.
Post #310
In response to a post by Pilot1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian
Please explain how it's tyranny. It's incredible that none of you can articulate this point yet you repeat it ad nauseum.
137.5 million Americans voted in the 2016 election. Californians that voted for Hillary? 8.8 million. That's 6.4% of the total population that voted.
Democrat votes from New York? 4.6 million. That's 3.3% of the voting population.
Those states combined to provide 13.4 million votes for Hillary, which is still only 9.7% of the total voting electorate from the 2016 election.
Trump had a total of 7.3 million from both states, which adds up to 5.3% of the total voting electorate.
Both states combined for only %15 of the total popular vote and Hillary essentially won those two 60/40. As in, 40% still voted for Trump!!.
Therefore, how on Earth would Hillary winning have been "tyranny"? It's simply more people voting for one person than another person. That's all. There's still 85% of the country that needs to be won over after NY and CA.
So...someone please tell me why should a person in a state with less population have their vote weighted more heavily in a presidential election than a person in a more populous state? What logical reason is there? How is that person in the less populous state handicapped by their vote being counted equally? Why should citizenship in a more populous state dilute the value of your vote?
I smell desperation.
FWIW - America was never intended to be a "democracy" - even an indirect one.
A democracy is horrid, where a majority can legally oppress a minority.
. . .
In the original design, only the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES was to be elected in a popular election.
Not the Senate.
Not the Executive.
Not the Judiciary.
. . .
But thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define a republican form of government, its source and origin.
(No, it's not synonymous with republic nor is it a "constitutional republic.")
. . .
Electoral College - not what you thought http://www.city-data.com/forum/46451320-post85.html
That is correct- until the early 1900s, US Senators were appointed by state legislatures, not elected.
The concept was somewhat akin to the House of Lords, in which those of the upper house would be independent of awarding the electorate with generous gifts from the US treasury.
The system that is in place, absent the electoral college, would be one in which those citizens from the most populous states could pass all the laws (POTUS appoints the Supremes, and we now have legislation from the bench) and essentially enslave those citizens in the less populous states for their pleasure.
Any regional interests (except those in the 10 largest cities in the US) would be ignored and politicians would be interested in appeasing the citizens of those cities.
This. You don't vote for the President in the elections. You are voting for the electors in your state. If an elector is to vote for the candidate you want to win, you're voting for that elector. Once the votes are tallied, the electors then go on to vote for the President.
This is why the left tried so hard to get electors to change their votes before December in 2016 - they wanted the electors who were going to vote for Trump, the electors that the people of the state voted for, to change their vote to Hillary.
Your fricken vote already does count. Every single vote already does count, it just counts on a STATE level. If 4 million people in the state of CA voted Hillary, and 3 million people in the state of CA vote Trump, the electors who would vote Hillary won, and would then cast their vote, for the state, for Hillary. Likewise, if 4 million votes in TX voted Trump, and 3 million voters in TX voted Hillary, the Trump electors won and would then vote for Trump for the STATE.
Each state gets a say, not just the most populated states. Not every state has the same # of electors, it is based on population. The fact is, more people throughout the United States wanted Trump for president. NY and CA do not speak for the rest of the population of this country.
"One person, one vote! All votes should count!" They already DO!
Thank you; You said it better than I did.
It seems the hardest part of the elections process for people to understand for the election of president of the United States, is that there are 50 separate State elections. And as you put it, if CA votes one way, that candidate won CA. and if Texas votes another way, the other candidate won Texas.
Every single state is free to do this now, including California.
You guys really don't seem to understand how this works.
I know they are free to do it. But they shouldn't have a choice in the matter. Including CA. I think it's a grave injustice that the minority voice in CA is not heard.
I understand how it works. I'm saying how it should be changed. I thought that was pretty obvious?
It seems you don't understand what I'm writing.
If you want to be a part of this coalition of states, and elect a president, there should be some super basic rules that all states must follow consistently.
Can't people take a look at California & realize why the populate vote would be horrible. That's a great example of what liberals do to a state. And while we're at it. This past election how many people didn't vote because they knew it wouldn't matter in a state like California?
Exactly, anyone who quotes the winning of the popular vote is discussing an irrelevance. One then needs to discern their motivation for discussing an irrelevance. Ill informed? Disingenuous? Or they just haven't applied any critical thinking to the topic.
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.
Why can't Electoral College defenders articulate themselves?
