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.
Well I have decided I am all for Dems working on this in Congress, because if they are fiddling around with things like this then it allows for less time to do things that are an actual detriment that have possibility of passing.
Well I have decided I am all for Dems working on this in Congress, because if they are fiddling around with things like this then it allows for less time to do things that are an actual detriment that have possibility of passing.
That's funny I like that. It sounds like a good idea.
its amazing at how many people that are too stupid to vote. but they still have the right. I believe only property owners should have the right to vote
Dumbazz D Congressman from Tennessee. If it were to pas, his state of Tennessee would have very little input into who actually elected the Presidents of the US.
NY, TX, FL and CA would be the only states that determined the next President. Screw the rest of you small states.
Politicians would only campaign in about a 20 large population centers. They wouldn't care about anyone else.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg
its amazing at how many people that are too stupid to vote. but they still have the right. I believe only property owners should have the right to vote
That would take away my voting rights, so I vehemently disagree with you!
Fine then, keep the electoral college but eliminate winner takes all. If your state is 80% red or blue for that matter why should the 20% of votes for the opposing party be ignored, that is wrong.
once again you have no clue about what you speak of. the feds dont set the rules for apportioning EC votes, the STATES DO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
You're mixing up individual's votes and a state's representation.
The EC absolutely makes a vote in WY worth almost 4x a vote in CA. That's just the reality. There's literally nothing equal about it.
Popular vote would make individual's votes equal regardless of where you live in the country.
Sure, the state would lose its representation, but I think this highlights a significant philosophical divide. Do we see ourselves as Americans? Or residents of our respective states first, and Americans second?
There's no doubt in my mind that in the 18th century, each state functioned more like an independent country. But in the 21st century? I challenge that premise pretty heavily.
I also don't understand the philosophical argument that more populated states should not have more power. And they do in the EC.
I'd argue if you want to make the EC more fair, do two things: eliminate winner-takes-all vote allocation, and make the elector counts more accurately reflect populations in each state.
That would basically just mirror the popular vote at that point, of course, but I really don't see a valid argument for why it should not.
remember that the founding fathers wanted a WEAK federal government, and the real power in the hands of the people and the states. as for your claim that somehow a vote in WV is worth more than a vote in california for president, that is bull crap.
once again you have no clue about what you speak of. the feds dont set the rules for apportioning EC votes, the STATES DO.
remember that the founding fathers wanted a WEAK federal government, and the real power in the hands of the people and the states. as for your claim that somehow a vote in WV is worth more than a vote in california for president, that is bull crap.
More accurately the states all had their own self interests and did not trust each other. Its not like the founding fathers said "oh gee, state rule s the best". There was many concessions to get the states to join together for self preservation. Slavery was the first of such compromises.
once again you have no clue about what you speak of. the feds dont set the rules for apportioning EC votes, the STATES DO.
And once again you resort to personal attacks for no reason at all. I am aware that states make the determination but there is a movement to get the issue heard by the Supreme Court.
Quote:
Here is a new solution, championed by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor. This last February, his movement (Equalcitizens.US) filed four lawsuits (two in blue and twp in red states), claiming that the “winner takes all” system (presently used in 48 states) violates the 14th Amendment principle of “one person, one vote.” That concept is settled law, most recently applied in the 2000 Supreme Court ruling that elected George W. Bush. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida...226-story.html
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.
