Popular Vote vs. Electoral College To Determine U.S. President (salaries, abortion)
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.
Not at all. The case has been made multiple times in this thread. It's very simple - without the EC, POTUS will be elected by the citizens of 4-5 densely populated states. That type of mob rule is exactly why we have EC.
You mean the states with all those people in them? The 4-5 largest of which do not in fact have 270 electoral votes? We have the EC only as a vestige of an historical accident. It is well past its pull-date and needs to be pulled. We are too great a nation to tolerate such foolishness any longer.
Surely you know that "one man, one vote" in the US relates to congressional districting, and in no way applies to the Presidential election? Oh wait - if you knew that, you wouldn't have made this post.
The Mods again grow angry. You meanwhile know that we have the phrase, just as I indicated. You know as well that we have NO PHRASE AT ALL about hectares and votes, which is the sort of proposition that you seemingly endorse. The rights of empty meadows and grasslands are not to be trampled upon in some worlds.
NPV is completely disenfranchising people and will likely suppress votes across the country.
Huh? If you were a Republican in Maryland, it would do you no good at all to cast a vote for President as is. The state is strongly blue, and your vote will make no difference. Under NPV, it would instead make no difference that MD is blue. Your vote would always count, and it would always count the same as the vote of anyone else in the country. No favoritism, no stacked deck.
Huh? If you were a Republican in Maryland, it would do you no good at all to cast a vote for President as is. The state is strongly blue, and your vote will make no difference. Under NPV, it would instead make no difference that MD is blue. Your vote would always count, and it would always count the same as the vote of anyone else in the country. No favoritism, no stacked deck.
You are correct. Maryland is reliably Blue, which is all concentrated in the I95 corridor, so if a Republican wins the national vote doesn't Maryland's voting for him in the EC disenfranchise the Democratic voters in the State?
NPV was adopted here to suppress Republican votes in the Congressional elections. They've only been able to gerrymander the Districts to Democrat advantage so far and some of them are getting too close for comfort.
The Mods again grow angry. You meanwhile know that we have the phrase, just as I indicated. You know as well that we have NO PHRASE AT ALL about hectares and votes, which is the sort of proposition that you seemingly endorse. The rights of empty meadows and grasslands are not to be trampled upon in some worlds.
OK let me try to get this straight...You honestly truly believe that people in the southern half of California and basically New York should decide who gets to be President. YOU believe that
OK let me try to get this straight...You honestly truly believe that people in the southern half of California and basically New York should decide who gets to be President. YOU believe that
No, because that isn't half the population in the country. If half the population actually did reside there though, I would support that. However, when you add in urban Illinois, Philadelphia and its suburbs, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Seattle, and Detroit and your about there. That's about half the population.
People should decide the election, not land masses.
No, because that isn't half the population in the country. If half the population actually did reside there though, I would support that. However, when you add in urban Illinois, Philadelphia and its suburbs, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Seattle, and Detroit and your about there. That's about half the population.
People should decide the election, not land masses.
That God for that other Amendment in the Constitution....You know, the 2nd one
In what way does this assertion differ from a description of the Supreme Court?
Interesting that you should mention that. It troubles me greatly that the Supreme Court has no check on its power, such that as few as five unelected individuals can -- and do -- make the laws for the entire country to live under. Yes, I know that they're only supposed to "interpret" the laws; but such decisions as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are nothing but blatant law-making. I would like to see Supreme Court decisions subject to review and being overturned by the other two branches; perhaps by a presidential veto, plus a two-thirds majority in Congress.
The Electoral College is an outgrowth of the Founders' very wise placement of checks and balances (with the unfortunate exception of the Supreme Court) in our government. It acts as a bit of a check on the power of the most populous states to dictate to everyone else who our president will be. As such, it should be kept in place.
Interesting that you should mention that. It troubles me greatly that the Supreme Court has no check on its power, such that as few as five unelected individuals can -- and do -- make the laws for the entire country to live under. Yes, I know that they're only supposed to "interpret" the laws; but such decisions as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are nothing but blatant law-making. I would like to see Supreme Court decisions subject to review and being overturned by the other two branches; perhaps by a presidential veto, plus a two-thirds majority in Congress.
The Electoral College is an outgrowth of the Founders' very wise placement of checks and balances (with the unfortunate exception of the Supreme Court) in our government. It acts as a bit of a check on the power of the most populous states to dictate to everyone else who our president will be. As such, it should be kept in place.
That's done now. A law is declared unConsitutional and the Congress (or state legislature) rewrites it to pass muster.
That happened after Kelo, many states specifically took eminent domain out of condemnation for a private project.
No, because that isn't half the population in the country. If half the population actually did reside there though, I would support that. However, when you add in urban Illinois, Philadelphia and its suburbs, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Seattle, and Detroit and your about there. That's about half the population.
People should decide the election, not land masses.
You are overlooking the role of the states in a federal republic such as ours. The states aren't merely convenient geographical descriptors; they are sovereign entities who have voluntarily chosen to form a political union, and granted to the federal government certain enumerated powers. Really, from a federal standpoint, each state should get a single vote to determine the president, with whoever gets 50% plus 1 vote (currently, 26 out of 50) becoming the president.
Naturally, the most populous states didn't agree to that. But the smaller states wouldn't agree to allowing the big ones to overwhelm them, which is what would have happened with a national popular vote. In order to form the union that the states desired to be formed, certain compromises had to be made. And voila: the Electoral College was born.
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.
the 2nd one
