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.
To liberal progressives, that would be just fine. Not because they actually believe millions of people condensed in a few places should make decisions for the entire country. No, it is because currently most of those people think like liberals do.
Can you imagine if most people in urban hell holes with the unique problems that come with living there (compared with most of the country) were conservative minded?
Then, the liberals would be screaming how unfair it is.
That is the problem with many liberals, in that they act like children, wanting what suits them now, but ignoring, or not caring about the unintended consequences.
Here is a video that explains why the FF's created the EC for our constitutional republic;
The "Founding Fathers" also considered black people 3 fifths of a person and women had no vote at all.
Yet that is something that changed over time.
I don't see any particularly convincing case against one man, one vote.
All equal.
There is an argument there because the Founding Fathers had this exact same debate. One man, one vote was proposed and supported by a selection of representatives at the convention. Ultimately it was Virginia that led the charge for the electoral college and the allocation of representation based on Congressional numbers. Primary reason is that there were significantly more voters (free white males) in the north than there were in the south. The agreement reached actually gave Virginia an outsized power as it alone possessed nearly a quarter of all electoral votes available. It was even more influential than California is today. No surprise that so many of our early presidents hailed from Virginia.
Still, the other states agreed and saw the advantage in the system. It could be changed, but it is not necessarily broken.
Assign electoral votes on a proportional basis, which should roughly mirror the popular vote. Would avoid facing a national recount in a close popular vote.
The reality that states put up Referenda questions on the ballot contradict this.
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman0war
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.
Really? Do you like to eat? Seems like the first and most necessary engine of the economy. Or are we gonna produce that out of a computer-managed factory too? Doesn't sound very organic.
The 1% might as well kill everybody and have robots do the work instead. Right?
Really? Do you like to eat? Seems like the first and most necessary engine of the economy. Or are we gonna produce that out of a computer-managed factory too? Doesn't sound very organic.
The 1% might as well kill everybody and have robots do the work instead. Right?
So are you saying that in a one man / one vote country, the urban dwellers vote themselves out of food?
Truly bizarre
I find no particular reason that say, rural dwellers or agricultural workers cannot make a reasoned case for their circumstance. I see no compelling case that agricultural workers either deserve nor require some special representation above and beyond what is equal to all other men.
By the way, is it Rural dwelling that merits special representation in your view, or is it actually Agricultural workers, sorry producers?
The 2 are not always the same.
I presume it's Agricultural producers.
What about fisherman?
Why shouldn't they receive the same protective representation?
They also produce food.
And what about mechanicanised farming?
Farmers can produce very little without machines.
So the producers of machines should also have greater representation.
Technically it's a republic - elected individuals represent the citizens. A democracy in it's rawist form would be impractical and quite impossible to implement. It's also the case with communism. Literal forms of these government cannot exist in reality. Think of a sliding scale to that ideal but impossible to achieve democracy. We do pretty good compared to most if not all countries.
In terms of the electoral college, yeah this was done to prevent a "mob rule" type event, so we vote for electorates who in turn vote for the president. So what if a electorate changes his vote? As far as I know the results of a "faithless elector" has never changed the results of any election. In that case it defaults to state laws I believe where in most if not all states it would become a court case of forcing the electorate to vote for the candidate. So doing away with the electors is essentially a solution for a problem that does not exist.
In terms of electoral college vs popular vote - we are a nation of decentralized STATES and the founding father knew that (and thus it went into a debate between the federalist and states rights factions). Thus they decided to be state/population based. An ingenious compromise so that any one state is adequately represented however population size is still considered. We are not the United States of California (whose population represents a huge voting block - they also get a huge amount of electorates). The senate gets 2 representatives per state also regardless to size. The concept of state/population based elections, rather than popular vote, simply fits the model of government across the board for our country.
Whew...I am glad this topic is in the history forum. Dealing with these guys in the P&C forum is frustrating. It's like teaching civics 101 to a bunch of angry children that didn't get there way. Let's hope they don't come here.
Last edited by Dd714; 11-10-2016 at 03:23 PM..
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.
