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 electoral college is basically an imaginary blanket covering the popular vote... hence "failing the majority" at times when it really matters (hint: Election 2000). It's not as bad as the Senate, but it does have it's own issues as the electors are proportioned based on population I believe every census.
Then again... the electoral college since it's updated every 10 years, it does not reflect the states as accurately. Same as the US Senate but the Senate is a little bit different. Doesn't matter the # of people living in 1 state, you'd get 2 senators regardless. If you happen to have 324 million people living in CA and the other 1 million scattered in the other 49 states (and assume they all vote GOP), CA would send 2 Democrats to the Senate and 386 members to the house and the other states will send 98 Republicans to the Senate and 49 members to the house. But in that state of 324 million people voted a certain way and wants their government to be representative of their will... but the system doesn't allow it as the Democrats would only win the House (and Presidency if the electoral college map was updated before an election), but the GOP would still take the Senate... and won't reflect the will of 324/325 million people.
Aside from what your obvious bias clearly shows via your rant, we were never set up as a total "democracy", as the Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom (of what worked and what was doomed to corruption and mob rule) set our country up as.
As a constitutional republic we are not focused on only the will of the majority of 50.1%+(which traditionally liberals abhorred as well) of the people wanted. Instead we were set upon a path where the minority view (49.9% or less) also had a say in how we were governed. The left talks of fear of fascism, yet is their Utopian and idealistic view, the majority would have total rule (no matter how small a majority) over the entire country.
Sure you like to use absurd examples of CA vs. the entire rest of the country of sparely populated regions.
The irony of course is that you undermine your own thought process, because what applies or works for one heavily populated west coast state, might very well not be applicable or beneficial to the lives of the rest of the country.
I also note how you ignore the EC gives proportional allocation to the number of citizens in population centers, just not total control. CA alone accounts for roughly 1/5 of the EC votes needed to elect a national leader. In your mind they should decide alone who is our potus.
Add to that your ignorance of how our system of government brilliantly gives each state only two senators (regardless of size/population), yet also allocates large numbers of representatives based on population size in the House.
So yes CA only gets two votes in the Senate, just like every other state, large or small. Yet they get a whopping 53 representatives in the House. Heck if memory serves me correctly, 7 states only have 1 representative, for a grand total of 7 for 7 states, vs. 53 for one state alone.
Many peoples uneducated and feeble minds never could have collectively come up with such a brilliant system of government that took into account what the majority of the populace wanted, and still protected the views and needs of the minority within a united country.
If it were up to people like you, 50.1% of the vote (primarily concentrated in just a few states) would dominate the entire counties future.
I suppose you might still think that is the best system, but you fail to take two major things into consideration.
First, just because conceivably your ideology, and by extension political party, would benefit from such a system (i.e. pure democracy of 50.1% rule), you would like it. However if the tables were turned (as they have been in the past, and will undoubtedly be in the future) and your ilk were always in the minority, even if only by less than 1%, you would hate the system.
Which of course leads to the most important reason things are not like you envision.
Knowing human nature, no system of government would work if the needs and desires of certain parts of
country were not considered/represented, and a select few states and their needs/viewpoint dominated. Those people and states would no longer agree to be governed by what they would consider to be a alien government.
That should not be a difficult concept to absorb considering how our country was created & forged on the principle of no taxation without representation.
For you to think that a handful of states based on their large population centers could decide the collective future of the entire country is absurd on it's face.
Sure you could have pie in the sky hopes it would work, but the collective experience and wisdom of our Founding Fathers (knowing human history and their own experiences) knew we needed a different type of system, and they came up with as close to a perfect one as possible.
New lows. Wow. Goes to show they don't have a realistic game plan. It's sad. Come on guys. Give people outside the coastal larger cities a reason to vote for you. Or at least try.
Aside from what your obvious bias clearly shows via your rant, we were never set up as a total "democracy", as the Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom (of what worked and what was doomed to corruption and mob rule) set our country up as.
As a constitutional republic we are not focused on only the will of the majority of 50.1%+(which traditionally liberals abhorred as well) of the people wanted. Instead we were set upon a path where the minority view (49.9% or less) also had a say in how we were governed. The left talks of fear of fascism, yet is their Utopian and idealistic view, the majority would have total rule (no matter how small a majority) over the entire country.
Sure you like to use absurd examples of CA vs. the entire rest of the country of sparely populated regions.
The irony of course is that you undermine your own thought process, because what applies or works for one heavily populated west coast state, might very well not be applicable or beneficial to the lives of the rest of the country.
I also note how you ignore the EC gives proportional allocation to the number of citizens in population centers, just not total control. CA alone accounts for roughly 1/5 of the EC votes needed to elect a national leader. In your mind they should decide alone who is our potus.
Add to that your ignorance of how our system of government brilliantly gives each state only two senators (regardless of size/population), yet also allocates large numbers of representatives based on population size in the House.
So yes CA only gets two votes in the Senate, just like every other state, large or small. Yet they get a whopping 53 representatives in the House. Heck if memory serves me correctly, 7 states only have 1 representative, for a grand total of 7 for 7 states, vs. 53 for one state alone.
Many peoples uneducated and feeble minds never could have collectively come up with such a brilliant system of government that took into account what the majority of the populace wanted, and still protected the views and needs of the minority within a united country.
If it were up to people like you, 50.1% of the vote (primarily concentrated in just a few states) would dominate the entire counties future.
I suppose you might still think that is the best system, but you fail to take two major things into consideration.
First, just because conceivably your ideology, and by extension political party, would benefit from such a system (i.e. pure democracy of 50.1% rule), you would like it. However if the tables were turned (as they have been in the past, and will undoubtedly be in the future) and your ilk were always in the minority, even if only by less than 1%, you would hate the system.
Which of course leads to the most important reason things are not like you envision.
Knowing human nature, no system of government would work if the needs and desires of certain parts of
country were not considered/represented, and a select few states and their needs/viewpoint dominated. Those people and states would no longer agree to be governed by what they would consider to be a alien government.
That should not be a difficult concept to absorb considering how our country was created & forged on the principle of no taxation without representation.
For you to think that a handful of states based on their large population centers could decide the collective future of the entire country is absurd on it's face.
Sure you could have pie in the sky hopes it would work, but the collective experience and wisdom of our Founding Fathers (knowing human history and their own experiences) knew we needed a different type of system, and they came up with as close to a perfect one as possible.
No we don't. We expect the sovereignty of the States to be respected as the Electoral College intended. The House represents the people proportionately and the Senate represents the States equally. It is a thing of beauty balancing the interests of the people as a whole and the States.
No, its not ridiculous at all. All States are created equally and as such all get two Senators. The Senate is intended to represent the States as entities unto themselves, not the people. The House represents the people. It is that simple. There is no logical reason why California should have more say in the Senate than my State (Vermont). We are equals. The Senate has everything to do with States as entities and nothing to do with population.
The Senate being proportional to population would be disasterous for the country in that we'd essentially be putting a State like California with its atrociously high poverty & homeless rate, high crime, and failed schools in charge of States like mine that don't have those problems. The country doesn't need California's bad governance and failed society forced on the rest of us.
California also has 1/3 the nation's Welfare recipients and the highest percentage of people 25 and older that never graduated from high school, ie., per capita the most uneducated state in the nation.
Good God...non sequitor much? What is with this forum and these kind of off-topic posts?
But hey, because I'm feeling like I want to have some fun and to add to your unrelated/ridiculously off-topic post, "Least educated" can be quantified in various ways. CA also has one of the highest percentages in the nation for bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees, making WV look pretty uneducated by comparison (with the lowest in both). CA also is an enormously powerful economic engine (larger than only a handful of nations in the world).
Change isn't going to prevent Russian hacking again!
What Russian hacking?
Quote:
Hillary did win the popular VOTE by 3 million! Sometime CHANGE is good!
And lost the electoral vote. If change means the most populous 4-5 states decide a presidential election, then in this case change is definitely not good.
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.
