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.
Lets look at this map. Use your mouse to enlarge the map, and it goes to county vote. You can drag it around by click and drag to see all parts. Put the mouse on any county, and you will see below the map the count in each county in the country. Note even in states the Democrats won such as California, look at the more rural counties that Trump won. Clinton and the Republicans won big city votes, especially those with a large minority population. The majority of the country, was won by Trump with Clinton winning only very small parts of it by size, just by winning the big city, minority vote.
How can anyone think it would be an advantage to the country as a whole, to let only a few big cities elect the president from now on, and let them run rough shod over the rest of the people who would lose any control of their lives.
The electoral college, at least levels the playing field, and the whole country has a voice in how the country is run.
There are many things that the other 90% of he country differs in their opinions of how things should run, and to let the big cities rule everything that happens, would soon eliminate the need to hold elections. Just let the Democratic Party appoint the president. And from then on, the big cities would be telling the rest of the country to change and think exactly like they think. And there would no longer be any need to treat the rural areas as equals, as they no longer would be. All benefits would go to the big cities, and just a few states. A new form of Dictatorship.
The Electoral College was created for us to be a Democracy, and keep it from becoming a Dictatorship ruled by a few big cities.
One Young Adult novel movie version of that world. The Hunger Games
Originally Posted by oldtrader
Lets look at this map. Use your mouse to enlarge the map, and it goes to county vote. You can drag it around by click and drag to see all parts. Put the mouse on any county, and you will see below the map the count in each county in the country. Note even in states the Democrats won such as California, look at the more rural counties that Trump won. Clinton and the Republicans won big city votes, especially those with a large minority population. The majority of the country, was won by Trump with Clinton winning only very small parts of it by size, just by winning the big city, minority vote.
How can anyone think it would be an advantage to the country as a whole, to let only a few big cities elect the president from now on, and let them run rough shod over the rest of the people who would lose any control of their lives.
The electoral college, at least levels the playing field, and the whole country has a voice in how the country is run.
There are many things that the other 90% of he country differs in their opinions of how things should run, and to let the big cities rule everything that happens, would soon eliminate the need to hold elections. Just let the Democratic Party appoint the president. And from then on, the big cities would be telling the rest of the country to change and think exactly like they think. And there would no longer be any need to treat the rural areas as equals, as they no longer would be. All benefits would go to the big cities, and just a few states. A new form of Dictatorship.
The Electoral College was created for us to be a Democracy, and keep it from becoming a Dictatorship ruled by a few big citie
No no no.
You're comparing areas of square footage / and or acres.
But areas of land do not vote, people do.
Whether market forces put those people in more densely or less densely populated areas is not a Constitutional matter.
People go where the jobs are.
They shouldn't suffer under representation because of that.
In your view, the largest landowner gets the most representation.
So a farmer in Texas that owns thousands of acres of poor quality land, get's more representation, then a few thousand people living in a high density urban area.
It's madness.
Mob rule is bad. Therefore these wise forefathers decided Representative rule in a representative republic is good. Our forefathers knew classics and wisely anticipated courses best taken.
Athens found that pure democratic rule was not good for the city state. It resulted in paralysis of government. And I don't think Socrates drank hemlock because he wanted to. Pericles was not exiled because he asked for it.
Besides if you had popular vote then Major population centers such as NYC and LA area would basically make the election decisions. Not good, not fair, and not wise if you think about it
The votes would go where the people live. Are you suggesting that minority rule is better?
The reality that states put up Referenda questions on the ballot contradict this.
Secondly, why shouldn't major population centers make those decisions based on their numbers?
They are the engines of the economy and the sources of so much of our tax money.
I don't see a very strong reason their votes should count for less?
One man one vote, can't be any simpler.
The individual states can set their own rules. I could be wrong, but I don't think a state is required to hold a presidential election. It could choose presidential electors by a vote of the state legislature. Or, it can follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and apportion electors by congressional district: one elector for each CD plus two electors for the winner statewide.
As for replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote -- that could happen, if 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states agreed. But 3/4 of the states will never agree to give up their role in choosing a president and instead giving it to New York, California, Texas, Illinois, and Florida.
So, this thread is pointless. There really are no new arguments to be made, either for or against. But thank you for reading my argument in favor of retaining the Electoral College.
..... As for replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote -- that could happen, if 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states agreed. But 3/4 of the states will never agree to give up their role in choosing a president and instead giving it to New York, California, Texas, Illinois, and Florida.
But isn't this exactly what happens now--a few key states decide the election?
Last edited by mensaguy; 11-13-2016 at 09:55 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote
The individual states can set their own rules. I could be wrong, but I don't think a state is required to hold a presidential election. It could choose presidential electors by a vote of the state legislature. Or, it can follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and apportion electors by congressional district: one elector for each CD plus two electors for the winner statewide.
As for replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote -- that could happen, if 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states agreed. But 3/4 of the states will never agree to give up their role in choosing a president and instead giving it to New York, California, Texas, Illinois, and Florida.
So, this thread is pointless. There really are no new arguments to be made, either for or against. But thank you for reading my argument in favor of retaining the Electoral College.
How on earth is this okay with you? The eternal cry of those who love the EC is "states' rights." I am a lot more interested in human rights. The states' rights argument led us to destruction not so long ago, or have you forgotten the "recent unpleasantness" that was the civil war?
Hell, electors are not even effectively required to vote as the citizens of their state did. There is a fine if they bolt and refuse to support the candidate selected by their fellow citizens, but given the potential consequences, it is vanishingly small.
I absolutely hate to hear people talk about the Constitution as forever fixed, in essence a dead document. Were that the case, women would not vote, black people would still be considered 3/5 human, and many of our public officials, including senators, would be chosen with no input whatsoever from the people.
The founders got a lot of things wrong (that women and black thing again), but they got a lot right, too. One of the things they got right is the ability to change what is wrong.
The founders got a lot of things wrong (that women and black thing again), but they got a lot right, too. One of the things they got right is the ability to change what is wrong.
Actually i think the 'founding fathers' (i hate that phrase), bungled quite lot.
the Constitution is too rigid and so the ideas of the 18th century are now a drag on the progress of the nation.
Just doing some napkin math...I don't think anyone could win the popular vote with the big cities alone. It might be possible if you could get 90% in ALL the big cities which would be extremely difficult. And by alI I mean a lot more than LA, NYC and Chicago.
A good example is Texas. Democrats win every large city in that state, yet Republicans carry the state by 10-12 points.
It gives them extra representation, beyond one person, one vote. It is unclear whether that really conveys a practical advantage.
No it does not. It gives people who live in low population states an advantage. The majority of those people are urban. And it does nothing for the vast majority of rural folk who live in states with large populations.
So on balance it decreases the voting impact of most rural and urban people and favors only the small number of people who live in low population states.
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.
