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 BIG Agricultural companies. The days of small farms providing the bulk of agricultural products is behind us.
I don't know if that is the case. Let's say it is, then why should small-scale farmers and rural folks get so much political weight in the first place, when you claim they don't provide the bulk of the food anyway? On one of the previous pages you or someone else said something like they should get more weight because they feed the nation.
Even if this is correct (which I don't accept), how that has to do with the POTUS? Again, I am not speaking of state elections or congress.
For and against Obamacare, the defense budget, war with Iran, unemployment, environmental regulations, wall street, etc, etc. - how is Nebraska effected differently than Chicago? The topics that effect one state differently that other, are very few (when dealt by the president). At state level or in congress, things are different indeed.
It has to do with why we have elections. It's not just to choose our representatives and leaders. Elections are a conversation between the voters and the candidates. It's a forum for the people. The Presidential election is important because it's a national forum. A forum when rural voters as well as urban voters get a chance to say what concerns them, what issues they are experiencing, what direction they'd like the country to take. National popular vote keeps that forum urban-centric, at the expense of rural voters, because urban voters AND therefore urban issues have the numbers to demand attention from candidates. It relegates rural voters AND rural issues to irrelevancy.
When the colonists rebelled against King George it was because they were relegated to irrelevancy. When the South tried to secede, it was because they felt themselves being consigned to irrelevancy.
The Presidential election is important because it symbolizes influence in the federal government, because it's national, and because it receives so much attention from the media.
National popular vote disconnects voters from the states they live in, essentially, by disconnecting them from the electoral votes their states cast. It's a bad idea because even though the electoral college isn't perfect, the electoral college does serve a valid purpose. It's not the electoral college's fault that the two major parties put through legislation ON THE STATE LEVEL to construct a winner-take-all system. The winner-take-all system is the problem, and it can be addressed on the state level. But rather than work to do that, some people would prefer to simply do an end-run around the Constitution, gutting its electoral college system, because they know that amending the Constitution would be much more difficult.
I don't know if that is the case. Let's say it is, then why should small-scale farmers and rural folks get so much political weight in the first place, when you claim they don't provide the bulk of the food anyway? On one of the previous pages you or someone else said something like they should get more weight because they feed the nation.
So much political weight?
They hardly have any political weight.
But they sure deserve to have a chance to weigh in. They sure deserve a chance to say to the candidates for President, "Hey, we know we're just small potatoes, and we probably won't have much to do with electing you into office, but if you DO win the election, we'd appreciate it if you thought about our concerns and our issues. We'd like to tell you what those concerns are, and we know that you're going to hear a lot more from those who live in cities about their concerns. So take a moment during this election process to listen to us, take a moment to speak to us, to tell us what your agenda is, and how it will respond to our issues. We may live out in the middle of nowhere, but we pay our taxes, we obey the laws, and we'd like just a little of your attention."
But they sure deserve to have a chance to weigh in. They sure deserve a chance to say to the candidates for President, "Hey, we know we're just small potatoes, and we probably won't have much to do with electing you into office, but if you DO win the election, we'd appreciate it if you thought about our concerns and our issues. We'd like to tell you what those concerns are, and we know that you're going to hear a lot more from those who live in cities about their concerns. So take a moment during this election process to listen to us, take a moment to speak to us, to tell us what your agenda is, and how it will respond to our issues. We may live out in the middle of nowhere, but we pay our taxes, we obey the laws, and we'd like just a little of your attention."
Well, you have had the electoral college so far and still you say that subsidies go mostly to big companies instead of small farmers. So obviously it does not matter if there is an electoral college or not.
Nor would a president voted per popular vote mean that farmers' concerns would be ignored. For instance if the president is from a small town him or herself, then they might be aware of whatever problems rural people are facing.
What the funny part is, if we were to get popular vote, the first time it backfires on the people who want it and they don't get who they want elected, they will SCREAM to have it reverted!
What the funny part is, if we were to get popular vote, the first time it backfires on the people who want it and they don't get who they want elected, they will SCREAM to have it reverted!
What is funny is that the Democrats did that ALOT this past four years...
Well, you have had the electoral college so far and still you say that subsidies go mostly to big companies instead of small farmers. So obviously it does not matter if there is an electoral college or not.
Nor would a president voted per popular vote mean that farmers' concerns would be ignored. For instance if the president is from a small town him or herself, then they might be aware of whatever problems rural people are facing.
And again, you miss my point. I don't argue for the electoral college for the end-game, I argue for the electoral college for the process. Election day and what happens afterward is going to be what it's going to be. Urban interests are going to outweigh rural interests no matter what. But the electoral college helps facilitate a conversation between rural voters and the candidates and ultimately between rural voters and the federal government that I think is necessary in a government that is of, by and for the people. Rural voters are a part of the constituency, and I think they have an important contribution to make to the conversation about our government and what its policies should be. That might not be a driving contribution, but it's still a voice that needs to be heard.
No, just no. The argument for the popular vote really is an appeal to idiots.
Idiots who don't really understand politics or our nations history.
Why exactly do you think this country is called "The United States of America". I mean, if you really think about it, it is quite a funny name. How many countries are given similar names? And how do their governments function?
As a general rule, the concept of a "United" anything, doesn't really mean a single nation. But rather a union of nations. Nations and states are exactly the same thing.
For instance, in the "United Kingdom", you have England and Scotland. The Scots don't really enjoy it when you call them an English. They may be part of the union, but they see themselves as their own nation within a nation. And much of their governments of the separate regions of the UK operate completely independently of a centralized body.
When we look at America, I think different people see different things. Some see a single unified nation of Americans, who need to collectively and democratically decide on what is best for the nation. And others see themselves as nations within the nation. They are Texans or New Yorkers or Californians. And these people tend to see people from other parts of the country as backwards, uncivilized, immoral, lazy, or insane. They want their part of the country to effectively be an independent nation, by resisting federal laws and regulations that they don't believe are in the best interests of the citizens of their territory.
When we talk about the national popular vote, the only people advocating for the national popular vote are the people who would actually benefit from it. California feels like it has less of a voice because of the current system, and feels like its voice would be much greater with a national popular vote. But, California is not too keen on being bossed around by the federal government. And ignores federal mandates, such as marijuana and immigration, whenever it suits them. And while they might complain about the disproportionate representation by the electoral college, they don't say one thing about the even greater disproportionate representation in the senate.
So back to your point, the people who advocate for a national popular vote are people who don't realize that this whole thing is not for the best interests of the people or the country. Moreover, the people who support such a change, are either ignorant of, or have inconsistent views when it comes to the principles of a Union of States.
What the funny part is, if we were to get popular vote, the first time it backfires on the people who want it and they don't get who they want elected, they will SCREAM to have it reverted!
Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.
In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.
In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.
In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.
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.
