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.
There would be no lack of representation, they would be represented in proportion to their population.
I'm done trying to explain this to you. Despite the fact that you claim you understand why we have an electoral college, you clearly have no clue. Spending any more time on this with you would be an exercise in futility. You seem like you're being deliberately obtuse. Have a nice day.
There would be no lack of representation, they would be represented in proportion to their population.
PEOPLE are represented in proportion to their population, in the House of Representatives. STATES are equal to each other. Huge Alaska and tiny Rhode Island, populous California and sparsely populated Wyoming; they are all equal to each other as states, and thus are represented equally in the United States Senate.
The purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that someone unqualified, incompetent, and beholden to foreign interests to the point of treason would not be elected and become president. The electoral college obviously failed in its purpose. On the other hand, the people got it right. It's time to let the majority decide.
The purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that someone unqualified, incompetent, and beholden to foreign interests to the point of treason would not be elected and become president. The electoral college obviously failed in its purpose. On the other hand, the people got it right. It's time to let the majority decide.
an it served its purpose, as hitlery is unqualified, incompetent, and beholden to foreign interests
I'm done trying to explain this to you. Despite the fact that you claim you understand why we have an electoral college, you clearly have no clue. Spending any more time on this with you would be an exercise in futility. You seem like you're being deliberately obtuse. Have a nice day.
Understanding the arguments in favour of it isn't the same as agreeing with it. I understand the arguments in favour of it and I disagree that is a better system than fair and equal votes across the country for presidential elections.
The purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that someone unqualified, incompetent, and beholden to foreign interests to the point of treason would not be elected and become president. The electoral college obviously failed in its purpose. On the other hand, the people got it right. It's time to let the majority decide.
Actually it's working exactly as it was intended to work, much to your dismay. I'm glad a few populous states don't get to decide the Presidential election for the entire country. And the chance of it going anywhere is slim and none, so that's that (despite the amount of sour grapes out there).
you are almost right. The Founders fully intended to create a system that suppressed the mob. The founders wrote extensively about this. they understood that Direct Democracy was "Mob Rule" and they spoke about the fact that the meaning of "Mob Rule" was "he who controls the mob, RULES"
What do you call it back when Nixon won reelection by 512 to 17 Electoral College votes? Mob rule?
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.
