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.
I know EXACTLY how the Electoral College works. Should 5% of the voters control 95% of the population? Everyone knows why Republicans won't answer this question.
The final tally showed 820,364 votes in favor, or 51.1 percent, and 783,584, or 48.9 percent opposed. The measure passed in only 10 of the 39 counties, but the measure piled up a winning edge in Puget Sound counties.
I'm asking 5% because if one admits that would be ridiculous then we can come to an agreement where the percentages are. No one will answer because they know that will be the next step. It's a trap and they know it. Not answering admits that there is a point where too few controlling too many becomes completely unacceptable.
Complaining about the stadium which will be funded by the metro because the metro gets stuck with all the bills is tiny violins. There are other states. Complaining that 10 counties control 39 when the ten counties are where the populations are AND where the tax revenue comes from is exactly what is wrong with the Electoral College.
As it is, the Electoral College allows the minority to control the majority and the minority is getting smaller while the majority is getting larger. At some point, the difference will be unjustifiable and the Electoral College will end.
If Republicans can keep whining about New York and California, then Democrats can remind them that West Virginia should not control a majority either. Further, these small rural states live on the largess of urban centers so they are basically taking urban money resulting in what could ultimately could be taxation without representation.
Should 5% of the voters be able to control 95% of the population?
You've got it backwards. The large urban centers take money from places like West Virginia.
The Republican party is welcome to appeal to Californians and win over the voters base just like how the Democrats did it.
The Democrat party appeals to its voters by promising to take stuff from Republican voters and give it to the Dem voters. There would be no point in the productive people who vote for the GOP trying to appeal to those people. It would amount to surrender.
So if we change over to the popular vote, we'd have run-offs and 3rd & 4th party candidates causing all kinds of unintended results. We'd have candidates that didn't need to belong to a party because there would be no winner take all system divided by just 2 parties.
Elections would be quite different than we have now.
No. Because popular vote nation wide is not what the forefathers wanted. CA and NY do not get to speak for me...when I'm not living in one of those states. They didn't before I lived in CA, and they won't after I leave CA. Right now, apparently they get to speak for me, but that won't last.
Each state gets a vote. The election is actually 50 elections. Each state votes for who they want to be president. Whomever wins the popular vote in that state gets the electoral votes. We already have "the popular vote", 50 times on election night.
Republicans love to mention what the forefathers wanted - like these people knew what will happen hundreds of years later.
Population in 1776 was 2.5 million did anyone ever think 243 years later the population will be well over 300 million. Does anyone today see the US reaching a billion people? Highly doubt it.
The Democrat party appeals to its voters by promising to take stuff from Republican voters and give it to the Dem voters. There would be no point in the productive people who vote for the GOP trying to appeal to those people. It would amount to surrender.
Let's make every state pay for themselves. No blue state money going to red states. Right now red states (the minority) vote for blue states (the majority) to give them urban dollars.
Should 5% of the voters get to control 95% of the population?
5% of the voters can't control 95% of the population. There's a reason California gets 55 electoral votes and rhode island only gets 4. You're just throwing exaggerated numbers out there in order to dodge the valid points the rest of us bring up.
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.
