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.
Do you realize that even 6000 members of the House would be less than a rounding error in the federal budget? Having so few Representatives in spite of US population growth simply makes the most representative branch unrepresentative.
You (I hope) realize that the cumulative population of won/lost states doesn't matter. What matters is votes. Clinton won more votes than Trump. There's no reason for an electoral college Presidential vote--a national popular vote would be just fine. 1 vote can just equal one vote, instead of somewhere between .7 & 1.8 votes. Wyoming has about 143,000 people per electoral vote. California has about 508,000 people per electoral vote. The antidemocratic status is obvious.
There is a perfect legit reason for the EC vote . It is what the FF created to ensure the rights of small states from tyranny by the big states, and it's the constitutional method of voting for POTUS . Folks need get over the "inequality" complaints and realize this is precisely what was wanted by the states that agreed to join together to form the Union .
The bottom line is that HC ignored a significant section of the populace , and paid the price . Even though her campaign staffed begged her to campaign more in the Rust Belt , she ignored them, arrogantly decided she didn't need to worry about them because they would vote Dem as always, and she lost there, which cost her the election .
I think the electoral college should be abolished. I think each persons vote should count and the winner takes all. I also think the candidates should be limited to a certain amount of money that they have to campaign with and they should not accept donations from any large corporations. Finally, no more Republican's or Democrat's. Run as an individual with individual ideas. Voting would not be strategic, the individual with the most supporters would win and in this scenario there would be no third party candidate so they all get an equal chance.
Just for the record I voted for Trump and the thought of Hillary in office turns my stomach.
Abolish the EC and you are for the tyranny of a pure democracy, thanks for playing. Now go educate yourself about freedom and federalism.
Do you realize that even 6000 members of the House would be less than a rounding error in the federal budget? Having so few Representatives in spite of US population growth simply makes the most representative branch unrepresentative.
You (I hope) realize that the cumulative population of won/lost states doesn't matter. What matters is votes. Clinton won more votes than Trump. There's no reason for an electoral college Presidential vote--a national popular vote would be just fine. 1 vote can just equal one vote, instead of somewhere between .7 & 1.8 votes. Wyoming has about 143,000 people per electoral vote. California has about 508,000 people per electoral vote. The antidemocratic status is obvious.
I don't think you grasped his point at all. The EC takes into account population by state congressional districts as well as votes cast.
Our EC was set up the way it is, because we are a collection of states, not a single mob of people living under a pure democracy.
Honestly, so many people here seem to not grasp the concept of states rights and federalism, and seem to want to simply abolish the rights of states altogether, and make one single state entity to represent all 330 million people.
I don't think you grasped his point at all. The EC takes into account population by state congressional districts as well as votes cast.
Our EC was set up the way it is, because we are a collection of states, not a single mob of people living under a pure democracy.
Honestly, so many people here seem to not grasp the concept of states rights and federalism, and seem to want to simply abolish the rights of states altogether, and make one single state entity to represent all 330 million people.
Abolishing the electoral college lessens the power of the smaller states, but as long as the configuration of the senate is 2 per state, you have a safeguard to stop the tyranny.
Again, when the popular vote is won by 5 million votes and that person loses, you will start losing the integrity of the system. And that is very possible under the current scenario with such a divide between urban and rural.
Wouldn't a senator from the opposing party and a large state under that scenario have a right of filibuster every proposal by a President not elected by the people?
Each state has 2 senators. That means that California has one senator for every 18.5 million people, and Wyoming has 2 senators for every 300 thousand. It means that in the senate Wyoming has as much say as California. The electoral college give small states like Wyoming a foot in the race it would otherwise not have. People in Wyoming would not matter. Now that you lost and lost big you want to change the rules. This is the whiner generation.
Senators represent the State's interests. That's why each state only has two. Senators are not based on population, so none have any advantage, or "foot in" as you said.
The number of electors each state gets is equal to the whole number of Senators (2) + the whole number of representatives (which is based on population).
The fallacy is that liberals try to compare the number of electors per state to population, and then they show that California has fewer electors per thousand people (thinking in terms of representation). However, it doesn't work that way (partly because of the fact that Senators are not tied to population, each state having only 2, regardless of population), and it wasn't intended to work that way. They probably know the truth, but they rely on the ignorance of most Americans about our system to make their 'case,' which is false.
Each state is sovereign and independent. We vote by State, not as a block (one nation). Amendments to the Constitution are ratified by a vote of the states, not a national vote. Presidential elections are no different.
Each state votes to chose the President independently, by popular vote. But when you vote, you are actually voting for electors, not the candidate directly. The electors are chosen by the legislatures in each state.
It may seem complicated, but it isn't really, and the system ensures that each state, and its citizens, have equal voice in a Presidential election, and if forces candidates to campaign across the entire nation, not just in a few large population centers, ignoring people everywhere else.
It's a good system, and it's not likely to be changed. It would require an amendment to the Constitution and a vote of the States. Not likely to ever happen, and it would be foolish to abandon the system. It has worked well and as intended throughout our entire history.
Senators represent the State's interests. That's why each state only has two. Senators are not based on population, so none have any advantage, or "foot in" as you said.
The number of electors each state gets is equal to the whole number of Senators (2) + the whole number of representatives (which is based on population).
The fallacy is that liberals try to compare the number of electors per state to population, and then they show that California has fewer electors per thousand people (thinking in terms of representation). However, it doesn't work that way (partly because of the fact that Senators are not tied to population, each state having only 2, regardless of population), and it wasn't intended to work that way. They probably know the truth, but they rely on the ignorance of most Americans about our system to make their 'case,' which is false.
Each state is sovereign and independent. We vote by State, not as a block (one nation). Amendments to the Constitution are ratified by a vote of the states, not a national vote. Presidential elections are no different.
Each state votes to chose the President independently, by popular vote. But when you vote, you are actually voting for electors, not the candidate directly. The electors are chosen by the legislatures in each state.
It may seem complicated, but it isn't really, and the system ensures that each state, and its citizens, have equal voice in a Presidential election, and if forces candidates to campaign across the entire nation, not just in a few large population centers, ignoring people everywhere else.
It's a good system, and it's not likely to be changed. It would require an amendment to the Constitution and a vote of the States. Not likely to ever happen, and it would be foolish to abandon the system. It has worked well and as intended throughout our entire history.
I think most people are well aware how it works.
If all states went towards proportional electors, a constitutional amendment would not be needed to make the system effectively more popular, although still including Senators in the electoral vote total.
Right now Trump voters are gleeful. No one answers the question..what happens when you have 5 million more votes and lose? How about 10? At would point is THAT system totalitarian, rural having much more power than urban centers? A question apparently right wingers don't want to answer. Not that I should have expected an objective rational conversation from right wing trolls, but even a handful of people who are conservative actually taking this serious question into consideration would be refreshing.
Under that scenario of someone losing the popular vote by as much as 10%, a Senator from NY or California would have every right to filibuster every single nominee a President puts up.
I doubt it is possible to win by 5 million and lose the EC vote . There is going to be a mathematical limit to how far under the nat pop vote a candidate can go and still win enough states to win the EC . The votes are spread somewhat proportionally except in cases of a few small states , so it's not as if the EC vote has absolutely no correlation to the popular vote . There have only been 3 POTUS in the history of our country that lost the pop vote and won the EC, including Trump.If he has indeed lost it . I really haven't followed it since the EC votes ended the election .
Last edited by wallflash; 11-18-2016 at 03:54 PM..
The Donald promised the impossible to a huge number of gullible people and they believed him. I doubt if any substantial changes will be made that might disturb the rich and comfortable. Like the Donald.
There is a perfect legit reason for the EC vote . It is what the FF created to ensure the rights of small states from tyranny by the big states, and it's the constitutional method of voting for POTUS . Folks need get over the "inequality" complaints and realize this is precisely what was wanted by the states that agreed to join together to form the Union .
The bottom line is that HC ignored a significant section of the populace , and paid the price . Even though her campaign staffed begged her to campaign more in the Rust Belt , she ignored them, arrogantly decided she didn't need to worry about them because they would vote Dem as always, and she lost there, which cost her the election .
The fault is hers , not the system.
We have an electoral college & she lost it. But that doesn't change the undemocratic nature of the electoral college. We have a Senate (and a Supreme Court) to protect small states from the "tyranny" of big states. It is much more undemocratic than even the Electoral College.
The Electoral College was not to ensure the rights of small states. It was to ensure that slave states had Executive power in proportion to their constitutional population, as opposed to their free population (or even worse, in their view, their voting population). Today, the Electoral College is an artifact of history. Abolishing it would encourage candidates to appeal to most American voters, not to voters on the margins of a handful of swing states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
I don't think you grasped his point at all. The EC takes into account population by state congressional districts as well as votes cast.
Our EC was set up the way it is, because we are a collection of states, not a single mob of people living under a pure democracy.
Honestly, so many people here seem to not grasp the concept of states rights and federalism, and seem to want to simply abolish the rights of states altogether, and make one single state entity to represent all 330 million people.
See above. There is a Senate that protects small states. There is a Supreme Court that protects individual rights. The Chief Executive should represent the American people as a whole. That would be achieved more effectively through a national popular vote.
I doubt it is possible to win by 5 million and lose the EC vote . There is going to be a mathematical limit to how far under the nat pop vote a candidate can go and still win enough states to win the EC . The votes are spread somewhat proportionally except in cases of a few small states , so it's not as if the EC vote has absolutely no correlation to the popular vote . There have only been 3 POTUS in the history of our country that lost the pop vote and won the EC, including Trump.If he has indeed lost it . I really haven't followed it since the EC votes ended the election .
It's certainly theoretically possible, and it will become more practically possible over time without EC reform. There is certainly a correlation to the popular vote, but deviation depends on relative population growth in the States. 2 of the popular vote winners who were not President ran in the last 5 elections. Trump lost the popular vote by a greater margin than Bush did in 2000.
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.
