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.
And if urban centers "dominate" the government because there are more urban citizens, well, that's the way it should be! If 100 people live in a city and vote for more bus service, and there are 5 people out on a farm who vote against it, the 100 people should win! In your world, those five farmers should have equal representation and equal power. That's completely bass-ackwards.
Evidently you didn't understand my points. I'm fine with urban centers dominating the government. It's your world that's undemocratic. Because not only do you not want the five farmers to have anything to say in your government, you want them to shut up and be silent as well. The five farmers aren't going to be able to stop the 100 city people in any way shape or form. The Florida problem wasn't five farmers exercising their voice. Florida influences elections because so many people live there. It's not a rural state. We don't live in a rural nation. We live in an urban nation, and urbanites are going to dominate our government.
But every four years, we have our one and only national election. And those five farmers, who've relied on their senators and representatives (and just like in your state, the senators and representatives are looking to the more urban areas of their district to represent, and ignoring the rural areas, because rural areas simply don't have the vote counts)to be their voice, might get the opportunity to speak out for themselves in the only national election we hold. Democracies will always marginalize rural voters. A miniscule advantage that makes rural voters a part of the conversation shouldn't be discarded. Rural voters aren't a problem. But they are a part of this country. They should have a voice. National popular vote means that the incentive is for candidates to win urban votes. Especially as the trend is for greater urbanization. To focus their attention on urban voters, to the exclusion of rural voters. I'm fine with urban voters driving the government, I'm not fine with a government that is free to ignore rural voters completely. I don't think that you should have to live in the city in order to have a voice in government. But I think proponents of national popular vote think that that's okay. If you live in the city, you get to help direct the government. If you live in the country, you don't. If that's the case, then why should people who live in the country pay taxes?
That's just a lie. Wyoming has a population of just north of half a million while California has ~38 million yet both get two senators. That means each vote in Wyoming simply carries more weighted value. As I said, rural voters get much more influence per vote than city people.
Even if you want to look at the house; Montana, Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all get 1 rep even though they have fewer than the number to make up a single district in a populous state. So, once again, the value of the vote in those states has more influence than the value of a vote in a urban state.
Any way you look at it, house or senate, rural voters get more representation than city voters.
And to address the representation, all you have to do is remove the cap on the number of representatives in the House. It's absolutely ridiculous that we ask a single person to represent, in some cases, more than a million people in a district. It can't be done. It contributes to the disconnect between government and the people. It concentrates the influence of lobbyists and PAC's. And if we had more representatives, we'd have a more equitable electoral college.
Florida influences elections because so many people live there. It's not a rural state.
It goes further than that. Florida has a high population, no doubt. It's also a highly-divided electorate. These factors combine to give it huge influence. That huge influence makes it ripe for abuse.
Texas, California, and New York do not influence the election nearly to the extent that Florida and Ohio do.
Quote:
But every four years, we have our one and only national election. And those five farmers, who've relied on their senators and representatives (and just like in your state, the senators and representatives are looking to the more urban areas of their district to represent, and ignoring the rural areas, because rural areas simply don't have the vote counts)to be their voice, might get the opportunity to speak out for themselves in the only national election we hold. Democracies will always marginalize rural voters. A miniscule advantage that makes rural voters a part of the conversation shouldn't be discarded. Rural voters aren't a problem. But they are a part of this country. They should have a voice. National popular vote means that the incentive is for candidates to win urban votes. Especially as the trend is for greater urbanization. To focus their attention on urban voters, to the exclusion of rural voters. I'm fine with urban voters driving the government, I'm not fine with a government that is free to ignore rural voters completely. I don't think that you should have to live in the city in order to have a voice in government. But I think proponents of national popular vote think that that's okay. If you live in the city, you get to help direct the government. If you live in the country, you don't. If that's the case, then why should people who live in the country pay taxes?
Again, I guess it's just a fundamental disagreement. To my mind, 10 people outnumber 1 person.
Right, if we moved to a national popular vote, candidates would campaign in places where they would get the most return -- cities. But that's where the people are. The system we have now dictates that candidates campaign in swing states. So they're in some rural areas and some cities. But they completely ignore rural and urban areas in non-swing states. That isn't good either.
Country bumpkins pay taxes because they get services from the government. They get roads. They get schools. They get fire and police service. They get defense, they get social security, medicare.
Yeah, I'm quite aware of that. That's why we're discussing this compact. That's the whole point of the compact -- because the constitution will never be amended.
Rural and urban voters would have the EXACT SAME SAY in national elections if we move to a popular vote. I think your problem here is that, for some reason, you don't like the fact that more people live in cities, and that they vote in such a way that reflects that they live in cities.
I agree with this. We should not be reading political news in early 2013 about who is frequenting Iowa, as if there's some mystery as to why that person is there. Good luck changing it though. It's the one time every four years in which Iowans find themselves relevant and they aren't about to give that up. We make the same complaints each cycle and Iowa is still #1.
Why should the Constitution be amended, when it's STATE laws that are the problem?
Urban voters would control the election, from beginning to end, if we move to popular vote. My problem, to repeat myself, is not that urban voters dominate the process. My problem is that Americans don't grasp that elections aren't just a contest between candidates. Elections are the opportunities we have to really steer our government, to really have an impact on policies and laws. Elections are when Americans get to tell the candidates and the people in office what's wrong and what's right about the government. I'd like ALL Americans to have a voice during elections. I'd like ALL Americans to get a chance at a candidate's ear. Rural Americans have never and will never steal an election from urban Americans. You want to fix a problem (that stems from winner-take-all), by silencing rural America. All the electoral college does is give a tiny incentive to candidates to visit with and listen to rural Americans. A tiny incentive. Without that, candidates have NO reason to visit with or listen to rural Americans. NONE. And you think that's okay.
Elections are conversations. It's not just about who is named the winner when the votes are all counted. It's about whether we include ALL Americans in the conversation, or not.
Disagree. The patchwork of election laws across this country must end. It's too open to fraud and underhanded political poisoning. But since the constitution will never be changed in this regard, then it's up to the states to fix it.
You disagree....with what? Everything you said afterward agreed with what I posted.
You disagree....with what? Everything you said afterward agreed with what I posted.
You're saying we shouldn't change the constitution. I'm saying we should because the states will never fix it themselves. Look at the states that have signed onto the compact. It's no surprise that they're all blue states. The red states will never change how they allocate votes unless the constitution forces them to.
But I'm also saying that the constitution won't ever be amended, so the states are the only hope we have. I realize it's futile
It goes further than that. Florida has a high population, no doubt. It's also a highly-divided electorate. These factors combine to give it huge influence. That huge influence makes it ripe for abuse.
Texas, California, and New York do not influence the election nearly to the extent that Florida and Ohio do.
the fact is that florida has about the same population as New York state...both have 19.something million
even New York is quite divided
New York City at 8.3 million , westchester county 993k, nassau county 1.3 million and suffolk counry 1.5 million....thats 12 million out of a 19 million state
example 2000 election total votes new york state: 6.5 million
gore took 4.1 million
bush took 2.4 million
new york state is made up of 62 counties....gore took 27.......bush took 35
so bush actually took more of the state (counties) than gore...but gore took the population by almost double...why because of the inequality of the numbers in the city
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.
