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.
if you understood our government you would not be asking that question
the house of reps.. represents the POPULATION..number of reps based on population
the house of the Senate represents THE STATE..each and every state EQUALLY (2 each)
Most of us understand that and don't need a primer on it, but it's generally recognized that the founding fathers did not envision states with the population of California.
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.
Exactly Reedwood66, it keeps 4 or 5 states with huge population from controlling every election.
It gives each state a chance at a fair election.
This logic is deeply flawed. Doing away with the EC would take states out of the equation altogether. That means one thing: the vote of a conservative in New York or California would actually count, as would the vote of a liberal in Utah or Mississippi. A Texan's vote would carry as much weight as a Vermonter's. It would NOT be about just a few states controlling anything, and the fact is, no one really knows what the outcome would be. Think about it: how many people probably stay home on election day because they believe the results within their state to be a foregone conclusion? Counting all votes equally would probably encourage much greater interest and turnout. Then again, maybe you consider that a bad thing.
This logic is deeply flawed. Doing away with the EC would take states out of the equation altogether. That means one thing: the vote of a conservative in New York or California would actually count, as would the vote of a liberal in Utah or Mississippi. A Texan's vote would carry as much weight as a Vermonter's. It would NOT be about just a few states controlling anything, and the fact is, no one really knows what the outcome would be. Think about it: how many people probably stay home on election day because they believe the results within their state to be a foregone conclusion? Counting all votes equally would probably encourage much greater interest and turnout. Then again, maybe you consider that a bad thing.
If you had quoted any other parts of my posts on this thread from me, you would see that I am very much in favor of the Electoral College. that particular response was also indicating why it would be bad to eliminate the Electoral College, since it would give even more control to the very large population centers, and would ignore the rest of the country.
If you had quoted any other parts of my posts on this thread from me, you would see that I am very much in favor of the Electoral College. that particular response was also indicating why it would be bad to eliminate the Electoral College, since it would give even more control to the very large population centers, and would ignore the rest of the country.
You seem to have badly misinterpreted my meaning. It would not give more control to any state, or any population center. It would give more control - equal control - to each and every voter, regardless of location.
I would love to eliminate the EC, and it has nothing to do with 2016. I have always thought it was a lousy idea.
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.
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.
Too bad. Move somewhere else if you don't like it.
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.
