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.
Most people don't seem to understand what kind of political system we operate under. It's particularly sad when our own elected officials don't know either. And no, we can't "just change it" because some people want to. Imagine if we were just constantly changing things based on the whims of whatever was popular at the moment. Our system works.
Our system was "hacked by Russians" along with an "influence campaign" via Facebook bots.
I'm just shocked that liberals would ever trust democracy ever again.
Don't agree with part one. Eliminating the EC would have an unintended consequence of candidates only campaigning in densely populated areas (New York, Texas and Cali) and leaving the rest alone. Having an EC gives small states a say and, this part I like, makes the candidates have to work; all the states during a campaign.
I do agree that part two has to be addressed, in some way. Conflict of interest has to be dealt with.
Plus, hacking by outside interest groups, seems much easier, with the EC. Since the EC, was established back when there were, I think only 13 colonies, and no computer hackers, (duh) it's time to update our system of democracy.
One vote, one person. Technology and honest elections are crying for the abolishment of the EC. JMO
Our last election, for president and commander in chief, screams for sanity. Trump won the EC, by 3 states, total 80,000 votes, odd number? Pretty evenly divided, I'd say.
Hillary, had over 3 million more popular votes.....................now, I think there is a huge flaw in our system. Let our next presidential election be as fair and square as humanly possible, the USA, deserves at least a fair election.
As a Texas resident, why should Vermont, approximately 1/56 the population of my state, get as many senators as we do!!
Same argument about California vs Wyoming.
Beyond this, consider the following:
2010 population of the 50 states: 308,156,338
2010 population of the 10 most populous states: 166,762,981. 54.1% of the 2010 population of the 50 States.
2010 population of the 10 least populous states: 8,970,654. 2.9% the 2010 population of the 50 States.
Both sets of states get 20 senators each. Practically a 17-to-1 ratio.
As a resident of Vermont we are one of the 50 States which makes us the equal of Texas and California in the Senate which represents the States, not the general population. The interests of TX and CA are no more important than those of VT or WY.
Given the House is apportioned by population, there is no point to even having both a Senate and House if both are apportioned by population. If that were the case we might as well just have a single legislative body instead of two.
I realize folks in TX are rather proud of their State and I don't mean to offend, but the reality is that if the country were dominated by TX & CA, your failed societies as compared to VT with your far higher poverty, homelessness, & crime rates, and with poor schools compared to ours are hardly the people to be dictating to us in the Senate how the country should be run. Having more people does not mean you have the right answers to governance.
The framers of the Constitution were very insightful in creating what is truly a thing of beauty.
Most people don't seem to understand what kind of political system we operate under. It's particularly sad when our own elected officials don't know either. And no, we can't "just change it" because some people want to. Imagine if we were just constantly changing things based on the whims of whatever was popular at the moment. Our system works.
No, it isnt working. The people's choice was nit the victir in two out if the last five elections.
We get that that is how our current system works. We want to exercise the mechanism that our Founding Fathers provided us with to change the system
This has already been done dizens of time. If it were never done slavery would still be constitutionally sanctioned.
Yes, we can "just change it because some people want to". That is the essence of democracy.
If the majority of the people are opposed to changing it there are safeguards in place to make it very unlikely that that change will occur. So, what is wrong with us pushing for it?
The GOP wants to retain it because it is their only realistic chance at victory...the people have only chosen their nominee in one Presidential election since 1988...that being Bush's reelection bid in 2004. Both GOP presidents to serve since the elder Bush only initially reached iffice via the Electoral College.
The GOP wants to retain the Electoral College because their party is not the people's choice.
It's about small states like New Hampshire not being bullied by larger states like California or New York dictating national policy for the rest of US.Isn't this an example of equality and fairness that you liberals always cry about?
I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a Democrat, but I wonder how many Republicans in California don't vote for President re thinking the republican Candidate has no chance to win the state and get the state's electoral votes.
I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a Democrat, but I wonder how many Republicans in California don't vote for President re thinking the republican Candidate has no chance to win the state and get the state's electoral votes.
I agree. How many people on both sides don't vote because they live in a state where their vote will be negated? We don't choose where we live according to politics. There are D's in Texas and R's in both California and New York. And there are people like you and I who are not tied to any party and sometimes our vote may count and other times not so much. Everyone's vote should always count.
Plus, hacking by outside interest groups, seems much easier, with the EC. Since the EC, was established back when there were, I think only 13 colonies, and no computer hackers, (duh) it's time to update our system of democracy.
One vote, one person. Technology and honest elections are crying for the abolishment of the EC. JMO
Our last election, for president and commander in chief, screams for sanity. Trump won the EC, by 3 states, total 80,000 votes, odd number? Pretty evenly divided, I'd say.
Hillary, had over 3 million more popular votes.....................now, I think there is a huge flaw in our system. Let our next presidential election be as fair and square as humanly possible, the USA, deserves at least a fair election.
hitlery had LESS than 3 million, not over... 2.8 million nationally
and she won California by more than 4.3 million
which means the ONLY reason she got the "popular" vote is California
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.