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 someone would actually present a system that would not mean large population centers (i.e. California) making decisions for the rest of the country, I'd certainly be willing to listen. But until then, the rest of the country is NOT California and New York and really doesn't want those two states making decisions for the rest of us.
You are forgetting, there are a LOT of people, both political parties, that don't bother to vote BECAUSE of the electoral college. If you are Democrat, in Alabama, why waste the gas? Conversely, if you are a Republican, in California, why waste the gas?
It's not as easy as you might think. While California has a LOT of people, it doesn't have everyone. To put it in perspective, California has 38.3 million....Texas, number two has 26.5 million....12 million difference....NY and Florida are roughly tied at 19 million a piece.....fully, 102,000,000 live in these 4 states...1/3 the US population.....you are assuming the entire state's populations mentioned would go one way or another.
They won't. Also, for every vote they cast, 2 more are available throughout the rest of the country. It would all come down to voter turnout and with this "sanction" lifted, EVERYONE's vote would count ergo the higher turnout ergo the more fair representation of what the people want.....I'm Republican and I would still like to see a popular vote.
Unlike the Democrats, I can live with the outcomes no matter how much I may, or may not like them. The popular vote is potentially more fair to the entire country.....if they get out to vote.
You are forgetting, there are a LOT of people, both political parties, that don't bother to vote BECAUSE of the electoral college. If you are Democrat, in Alabama, why waste the gas? Conversely, if you are a Republican, in California, why waste the gas?
California could make themselves immediately relevant to the election by changing their electoral allotment to proportional. Of course the idiotic Democrats running that state absolutely don't want that.
If someone would actually present a system that would not mean large population centers (i.e. California) making decisions for the rest of the country, I'd certainly be willing to listen. But until then, the rest of the country is NOT California and New York and really doesn't want those two states making decisions for the rest of us.
It speaks volumes that two of the most populous states in the country happen to be blue states, whereas several Middle American states are sparsely populated and largely rural. Could it be that those big blue states are appealing to many people for a number of different reasons, and that's why so many people choose to live there? Why should people living in desolate remote places get to make decisions for the rest of us?
It speaks volumes that two of the most populous states in the country happen to be blue states, whereas several Middle American states are sparsely populated and largely rural. Could it be that those big blue states are appealing to many people for a number of different reasons, and that's why so many people choose to live there? Why should people living in desolate remote places get to make decisions for the rest of us?
Why should coastal populations be allowed to dictate political policy for the rest of the country?
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.