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 making a pretty wild assumption. Both the campaigns and the results of this election are based on the rules of how the Electoral College votes were cast, both the campaigns and the results change under a different set of rules. For example Trump does not make his last two stops the day before the election in two small areas critical to his wins in PA and Michigan. The other thing is voters are less likely to sit home in these states where the election is foregone collusion.
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-12-2017 at 01:54 PM..
This argument will go on and on. It was set up as a method to make sure that smaller population areas and rural areas of the nation, were not ruled by what 3 or 4 big cities wanted to happen. It exists, to make everyone's voice heard.
I saw figures, that showed outside of California that Trump would have won on a popular vote basis. Only due to the sheer number of people living in California would he lose based on the popular vote. If the electoral college did not exist, a few big city areas would control he entire country, and the rural areas would have no say so on who is president.
It was designed as a solution, to let the president represent the entire country, not just one or two over populated states.
Which is just a way of saying that smaller group of voters gets to prevail over a larger group of voters. This is the antithesis of what an election is all about.
True or false. States are non-living entities.
True or false. Non-living entities are not human and therefore do not have rights.
The "rights" that we speak of are accorded to the people who live in those states. A citizen in Wyoming, Alaska, and Delaware should have no more a right when it comes to voting than a citizen in California, Florida, or Texas.
Please stop acting like states have rights. They don't have rights any more than automobiles do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Sort of like corporations are people.
And this takes us all the way back to my post #3:
It depends on whether the nation wants to change the fundamental nature of the United States, specifically, whether this is a union of semi-autonomous states as originally created or a single entity with mere organizational divisions.
You're now talking about changing the fundamental nature of the United States from something other than united "states."
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 08-12-2017 at 04:42 PM..
It depends on whether the nation wants to change the fundamental nature of the United States, specifically, whether this is a union of semi-autonomous states as originally created or a single entity with mere organizational divisions.
You're now talking about changing the fundamental nature of the United States from something other than united "states."
Fine. I'd rather have a united people than a united bunch of imaginary boundaries.
It depends on whether the nation wants to change the fundamental nature of the United States, specifically, whether this is a union of semi-autonomous states as originally created or a single entity with mere organizational divisions.
You're now talking about changing the fundamental nature of the United States from something other than united "states."
Between 1876 and 2000 it was not an issue at all. The popular vote tracked the electoral vote.
Only in 2000 and 2016 has the the electoral vote given the candidate with fewer popular votes victory.
Personally, I think after that 124 year period that its a little ridiculous to suggest that abolishing the EC will lead to the ruin of America. Many things have changed in the 238 years since The Constitution was ratified and George Washington became our first President. It would not be the catastrophic blow that some suggest.
Some seem to suggest that we can't change the EC because they claim it was pure brilliance on the part of the Founding Fathers to create this institution. Most of those same people refuse to acknowledge the changes that have been made in the EC and presidential selection process as well as the overall changes in America. My suspicion is that those who support the EC voted almost exclusively for a certain presidential candidate last November.
Perhaps, the EC works on some level. For that matter wooden plows and steam engines still work as well. It doesn't make those the best plows or engines for use today.
A popular vote would make the presidential election similar to every other election in this country. I have heard no good arguments against it in this thread.
Perhaps, the EC works on some level. For that matter wooden plows and steam engines still work as well. It doesn't make those the best plows or engines for use today.
In their infinite wisdom the Founding Fathers have provided the means to change it, you only need 38 states to agree or you could circumvent it with pact I mentioned earlier. The pact itself is a very big hurdle and likely the only possibility for this to change at least at any time well into the future. This has a fatal flaw though, voters in states that have not entered into this pact have a reason to go out and vote because they can affect the electoral votes of the states that have entered the pact. This idea is something that could turn around and bite you quickly.
These things were made difficult to change on purpose, again the reason being so states with larger populations were not stomping over lower population states.
Quote:
A popular vote would make the presidential election similar to every other election in this country. I have heard no good arguments against it in this thread.
It's only the Presidential election that we elect a leader as a nation.
Location: Removing a snake out of the neighbor's washing machine
3,095 posts, read 2,040,736 times
Reputation: 2305
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
In the past nine months since the election we have hard that the electoral college is flawed. Two out of the last five elections saw a different popular vote than the electoral vote, that is simple to understand. But is it a symptom of the system and we should just leave it or should we fix the system? And if we chose to fix it, what do we do?
I say yes. It let's only 10% of the voting populous truly decide the president since they live in swing states. If you live outside of a swing state, what is the use in voting? My suggestion, tie electoral votes to the state's popular vote. So you win 60% of state's popular vote, you get 60% of the votes. For states with 5 votes, that would be 3 votes going to a given candidate.
The United States employs an Electoral system of picking a president, the Philippines uses Popular vote, yet they both managed to pick old, ranting and rambling guys that are both unqualified to run their countries.
With all that talk, you never actually pointed out anything wrong with the EC or suggested anything that might fix anything that was wrong with the EC.
All you said was, "It's old."
And that he doesn't like the result of 2016.
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.
