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.
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.
It always seems funny to me when people talk about the EC making sure residents of all parts of the country get represented. Nothing could be further from the truth. Usually the campaigning is limited to a few traditional battlegrounds, while reliably Democratic or Republican states are completely ignored. Trump stepped outside that box this time, and I have to give him credit for that, if for nothing else.
But yes...people voting for the minority party in strongly red or blue states might as well stay home, since the outcome is pretty much a forgone conclusion (actually, that means that the majority folks might as well stay home, as well, since they've already won.)
I understand the motivation of the EC: to protect small, sparsely populated states and the people who live in them, mob rule is bad, and all of that. But is rule by the minority really better?
It probably doesn't matter, as this amendment will never get anywhere in the current climate, but it is something at least worth discussing.
As a final thought...a Republican who wants the popular vote? Dang, Caleb, I think I found me a unicorn!
Democrats are going shoot themselves in the foot with this one. They really do go into an election with an advantage in the electoral college.
Watch electoral college gets scrapped and in 2020 the Republicans win popular vote and the democrats would have won with electoral college ha ha
What a bunch of whiners. It did exactly what it was designed to do. Not allow huge population centers to override the will of the rest of the country. Just look at an electoral map by area and see just how little blue there is. Change it to a popular vote by county, each county awarding 1 vote. Guess who still wins?
What if electoral votes are done by county. So if say Florida had 29, the winner of the state would not get all. It would be broken up by county?
Each state can apportion its Electoral votes how it wishes. Currently almost all are winner take all.
Some states have some sort of compact that says they give the votes of that state to whichever candidate wins the popular vote. That's pretty much dead in the water since not enough states have signed on.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,409 posts, read 54,706,291 times
Reputation: 40902
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunetunelover
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.
I saw an interview with Priebus where he stated ( I can't rememember exactly) that 15 or 18 states decided the election. WHAT's so great about that system?
What's so great about a system that attempts to keep one group of voters from having too much influence by giving another group of voters too much influence?
I saw an interview with Priebus where he stated ( I can't rememember exactly) that 15 or 18 states decided the election. WHAT's so great about that system?
One man, one vote. It's long overdue.
It isn't going to happen.
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.
