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.
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
Blue states grow plenty of food. PLENTY. And those "urban jungles" hold taxpaying citizens with the right to be represented by their vote. Cities do not deserve to have millions ruled by hundreds. The electoral college was written over 200 years ago. The world is smaller. There is no reason a blue state that pays far more than it gets back, should be controlled by a small state that takes more than it gives. Blue states need to simply stop doing business with red states, grow locally, buy globally and let red states be forced to support themselves on their own dollars.
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.
And that would probably be better for all. We would all be happier with an amicable divorce. Truly. Both sides hate the other side and it gets worse every single day. A classic example is pollution. Trump and the GOP want to remove environmental laws while blue states want to protect their environments. Splitting the country would allow blue states to protect their own environment while the watch red states turn theirs into Shanghai.
Blue states grow plenty of food. PLENTY. And those "urban jungles" hold taxpaying citizens with the right to be represented by their vote. Cities do not deserve to have millions ruled by hundreds. The electoral college was written over 200 years ago. The world is smaller. There is no reason a blue state that pays far more than it gets back, should be controlled by a small state that takes more than it gives. Blue states need to simply stop doing business with red states, grow locally, buy globally and let red states be forced to support themselves on their own dollars.
lets look at the ''biggest'' and most voicetress blue state..... california
they GET more federal funds than they pay in
they get more than 40% of their ENERGY from two other states
they get more than 50% of their water from other states
California can not support it self
hitlery won California by 4 million votes...therefore California is the ONLY REASON she won the '''popular vote''''
she stupidly IGNORED the rest of the country..... and justifiably she lost the election
lets look at the ''biggest'' and most voicetress blue state..... california
they GET more federal funds than they pay in
they get more than 40% of their ENERGY from two other states
they get more than 50% of their water from other states
California can not support it self
hitlery won California by 4 million votes...therefore California is the ONLY REASON she won the '''popular vote''''
she stupidly IGNORED the rest of the country..... and justifiably she lost the election
And if only 35,000 people combined in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania had voted for Hillary, Trump would have lost. 35,000 people, smaller than a small town. Yet those 35,000 can control the entire west coast? Sorry, we have reached the point where the country is better off split. We are not "United" any more, we are just "states". Better to have an amicable divorce.
Evidently, winning elections the fair way (i.e. having a compelling platform that resonates with the population) isn't good enough for these people. They have to cheat the system in order to force a win.
Scary stuff.
nah. if I remember my government class, and please correct me if wrong, to change the electoral college takes 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states. it will never happen.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 05-10-2018 at 05:56 PM..
Evidently, winning elections the fair way (i.e. having a compelling platform that resonates with the population) isn't good enough for these people. They have to cheat the system in order to force a win.
This is literally the third thread in a week talking about this. There's probably still an active one open.
A bit of education on the topic:
The Constitution stipulates that state legislatures choose how electors are selected. If we were to roll back to the early 1800s, most state legislatures appointed them. There was no state-wide popular vote.
Now, reread your quote. It would apply then as it does now. If this was 1800, holding a state-wide popular vote would be seen as cheating since letting the politicians decide our selection for president for us would be the fair way?
Shall we return to that method?
So, now we are better educated on the matter.
Asking that a president be elected by popular vote could be controversial but not the way many people think it is. I mean, it is at the very least representing the will of the people. It isn't like we are saying "select the president by whichever bowl the dog eats out of first. Left bowl? Democrat. Right bowl, Republican." In theory, the Constitution would be fine with that methodology!
Electing an official by way of popular vote is a valid concept. That's how states do it internally.
We send representatives to the House by way of popular vote in their district. It isn't like "this state has 5 Democrats and 3 Republican representatives. Therefore, since there are more Democrats than Republicans, just send 8 Democratic representatives. That makes as little sense as how Electors are chosen now.
If not a national popular vote, why not proportional electors based on the state vote?
Some states right now don't do "all or nothing" for their Electors. Maine and Nebraska have two EV each for the winner of the state popular vote and then the others are allocated by the congressional district popular vote. While that isn't really perfect either, it already shows that there is a precedent for allocating Electors that isn't "winner take all."
Evidently, winning elections the fair way (i.e. having a compelling platform that resonates with the population) isn't good enough for these people. They have to cheat the system in order to force a win.
"One person, one vote" is the ultimate in fairness. The Electoral College, created as an awkward compromise to accommodate the southern slave states, PROMOTES cheating by rewarding gerrymandering in swing states.
Some states right now don't do "all or nothing" for their Electors. Maine and Nebraska have two EV each for the winner of the state popular vote and then the others are allocated by the congressional district popular vote. While that isn't really perfect either, it already shows that there is a precedent for allocating Electors that isn't "winner take all."
I agree with apportioning the electors
for example:new York 29 electors
New York....out of 62 counties... Hillary won only 16..... trump took 46 counties.
New York is all or nothing.....under apportioning trump would have gotten 20 electors to Hillary's 9
trump won 30 states to Hillary's 20
trump won 2900 counties to Hillary's 241 counties
btw of the 5 boroughs of NYC..Hillary lost Staten Island, she could not even carry the whole city
here are a few of the '''blue''' states Hillary took
look at Nevada...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 17 counties...Hillary won only 2....trump took 15 counties
look at Oregon ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 36 counties...Hillary won only 8..... trump took 28 counties
look at Washington ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 39 counties...Hillary won only 12..... trump took 27 counties
look at New Mexico...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 33 counties...Hillary won only 14..... trump took 19 counties
look at Minnesota ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 87 counties...Hillary won only 9..... trump took 78 counties
look at VERY BLUE New York...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates.... but...out of 62 counties... Hillary won only 16..... trump took 46 counties
look at VERY BLUE Maryland...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates.... but...out of 24 counties... Hillary won only 7..... trump took 17 counties
look at Virginia...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates.... but...out of 133 counties... Hillary won only 40..... trump took 93 counties
by apportioning .......trump would be the winner hands down
"One person, one vote" is the ultimate in fairness. The Electoral College, created as an awkward compromise to accommodate the southern slave states, PROMOTES cheating by rewarding gerrymandering in swing states.
and without fascist California, trump took the popular vote
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.
