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 read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm well aware of how it came to be. The country has changed a great deal in over 200 years. Rural voters are dramatically overrepresented just like the Second Amendment is no longer about muskets.
And the First Amendment Freedom of the Press is no longer just about broadsheets printed with lead type on a hand operated printing press.
A Wyoming vote has almost four times the power of a California vote. Rural voters are OVERREPRESENTED now. Blue states pay far more than they get back while blue state voters have far less power. That is not a recipe for peaceful government and sooner or later, the scales of justice will reflect the anger from blue state voters who have had enough.
For over 20 years now I have believed a better cure would be a massive expansion of house seats to where no house member represents more than 100,000 citizens.
For over 20 years now I have believed a better cure would be a massive expansion of house seats to where no house member represents more than 100,000 citizens.
That would be fine by me. Let the House reflect the population.
For over 20 years now I have believed a better cure would be a massive expansion of house seats to where no house member represents more than 100,000 citizens.
While I agree, I also fear that thats a sure fire way to bankrupt and logjam our government. 100s if not 1000s more self-interested, entitled, foot draging, bureaucrats? No thanks.
A Wyoming vote has almost four times the power of a California vote. Rural voters are OVERREPRESENTED now. Blue states pay far more than they get back while blue state voters have far less power. That is not a recipe for peaceful government and sooner or later, the scales of justice will reflect the anger from blue state voters who have had enough.
oh bull
the electorial college is NEEDED
New York city(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED
nyc population 8.3 million
wyoming 544k
vermont 621k
n. dakota 640k
alaska 690k
s. dakota 821k
delaware 885k
montana 974k
rhode island 1.01 million
hawaii 1.2 million
maine 1.3 million
total 7.8 million
10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY
repealing the electorial college would take away any say of the smaller rural states
look at chicago...ok the population of chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of nebraska is 1.8 million
should a city negate a whole state???
should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1.8 million) of rural farms producung all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1.8 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies
the electorial college is there for a reason...
When establishing our federal government, smaller States like Rhode Island had feared they would have no voice, and therefore no protection, against the more populous States like New York or Massachusetts. Similarly, the sparsely populated agricultural regions feared an inability to protect their interests against the fishing and shipping industries dominant in the more populous coastal States. These concerns on how to preserve individual State voices and diverse regional interests caused the framers to establish a bi-cameral rather than a uni-cameral legislative system.
In that wise plan, one body preserved the will of the majority as determined by population and the other preserved the will of the majority as determined by the States. As Constitution signer James Madison confirmed:
The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are the guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretences they may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.
The Founding Fathers considered all forms of government; thoughtfully, intellectually, historically and they debated and agonized and then they compromised, agreed and then pledged their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish, protect and enable the government they had created. The education, the intellect and the faith of those men can not be underestimated. We can only bring poverty and unrest if we deign to ignore their wisdom and replace our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, with a Democracy, rule by the mob.
The point is, undermining or ditching the Electoral Collage is a part of the plan to convert America to neo-Marxist mob rule with top-down control by the national (and global) ruling class....the simple fact is the national vote SCHEME is just that a scheme being pushed by the likes of George Soros and the fascist liberals looking to bring some hybred of marxism to the USA
I read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm well aware of how it came to be. The country has changed a great deal in over 200 years. Rural voters are dramatically overrepresented just like the Second Amendment is no longer about muskets.
should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1/2 million) of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1/2 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies
are we not the 50 UNITED States....or should we be the country of a few large cities.....
Fair enough. However, when you jump in to take up someone else's argument (JimRom) one should expect to have to defend it.
But we are ruled by more populous states. And states have lost their voice. If you have a voice, someone must be there to listen. Presidential candidates are not spending any time at all in about 38 states that add up to 66% of the population. They aren't hearing that voice.
My argument isn't that the EC is perfect. It isn't, by a long shot. Even if you could legitimately say that those 38 states have no sway in the election, though, that still leaves us with 12 states that are making the decision - versus 2 or 3 states making that decision if we went to a popular vote.
Could the EC be changed in order to make it more equitable? Probably, but I doubt that it will be. As long as the two major parties have all the power they will continue to keep this as a wedge issue that distracts from more important things. We'd be far better off to focus on opening elections to third parties and making the two major parties actually defend their positions against outside candidates.
The electoral college was created, specifically, to keep a man like Trump out of office. It has been tested exactly once, and it failed.
Actually wrong.
It works to protect the States with smaller populations and allows them to have a say.
Should the EC be dis-banned, I believe either a new civil war would happen or the US would split and new nations would be formed.
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.
