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.
Not true. If you live in a state who votes "the other way", your vote really does not count. If you look at recent elections (R and D winners), they only campaign in the battleground states. The reason is that individual votes don't really matter in other states, so you have politicians doing what they have to do to win, which is to win those states. They are focused on the interest of a few, rather than the interest of many.
Every person's vote should count the same. In National elections, that means one person, one vote. For Senators, each state elects two Senators. For the house, they elect their representatives. That is how our government was designed. The EC is outdated, and no longer needed (votes are not delivered by horse and buggy anymore). Presidents should serve the will of the people, not make promises to the few votes that actually count.
if they are going to lie to us, they should lie to ALL of us.
In part I agree, I live in a once solid blue state (until Reagan and the 2016 election). In 2016 Philadelphia didn't dictate that we remain a blue state.
The purpose of the Constitution, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to "secure" the unalienable rights of the people. That is all our national government was supposed to do: protect and preserve us in our lives, our liberty, and our property.
To do this, the Founders gave us a republic, not a democracy.
In part I agree, I live in a once solid blue state (until Reagan and the 2016 election). In 2016 Philadelphia didn't dictate that we remain a blue state.
The purpose of the Constitution, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to "secure" the unalienable rights of the people. That is all our national government was supposed to do: protect and preserve us in our lives, our liberty, and our property.
To do this, the Founders gave us a republic, not a democracy.
As far as I'm aware, they never have cast a faithless vote.
Even when a cast of Liberal celebrities and talking heads on MSNBCNN begged them to.
And all I'm saying is that they can. There is nothing written in stone that electors have to vote all together. Nor is there any rule that says all electoral votes will be given to the overall state's popular vote (in fact, some states do it differently).
Counties are made up of people who live within them.
Use your noggin instead of parroting liberal media. The electoral college is there for a reason...
And you totally ignore the point about density. The majority of the counties between cities are very rural and are made up comparatively smaller numbers.
I don't have an issue with the number of Senators. Equal representation of the states is a function of the Senate.
For the rest... I disagree. Everything should be based on Wyoming. We'll need to <edit> change </edit> everything based on Wyoming's population (so 580,000 people net you one representative; therefore, we'll need to increase the HoR seats to 564, because, you know... Wyoming...).
Wyoming's the straw that stirs this Great American Drink, after all... I think we can all agree on that.
To Wyoming! The Equality State!
You say you disagree with me, but then you talk about increasing the size of the House of Representatives -- just like I did. So where's the disagreement? There's nothing about Wyoming, as such, that is determinative. It's just that it happens to be the least-populated state. But nowhere did I say that the overall number of representatives should be based on:
>>> Population of United States divided by Population of Wyoming <<<
In any case, surely you agree that its residents deserve SOME representation, right? Based on our current congressional model, they are entitled to a single representative plus two senators. Nowhere have I suggested that they should have any more presentation than that, even if California should end up getting more.
The EC and the Senate were put in place to limit the power of the majority but our current status of "the winner take all" and the lop sided population differences between states was not a consideration. Early in our history, when John Quincy Adams won the presidency by vote of the House since Jackson failed to win majority of the EC, the EC was seen as a failure. It was expect that most future elections would be decided by the House.
The founders are not gods and the constitution is not a sacred text.
There is some value in our republic to keep the majority in check but the refusal of many to recognize how undemocratic our process in selecting the president of our democratic republic can only be explained partisan.
1 city in a state has the ability to make all rural votes null in a winner-take-all system. How do you feel about that?
that is up to the states
My opinion, pro-rate the ec votes
California's 55 votes...Hillary gets 61% ... 32..... trump gets 21... Johnson gets 1
New York's 29 votes ...Hillary gets 59%...17........trump gets 11... Johnson gets 1
Virginia's 13 votes.....Hillary got 49%.....6..........trump gets 5.....Johnson gets 1
Florida's 29 votes......Hillary got 47% to trumps 48%...Hillary gets 14...trump gets 15
etc
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.
