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.
But it's not working. The popular vote actually represents who the people want not the electoral vote.
Of course it's working exactly the way it was intended to work. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's not working. You're still not getting it and maybe you never will.
Our government was designed so the overall popular vote would not determine who the president is. States determine the presidency and we vote within our states to tell the states who we want them to elect. That's how it's suppose to work. I'm not sure why after all this time, that's still not sinking in to you.
Of course it's working exactly the way it was intended to work. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's not working. You're still not getting it and maybe you never will.
Our government was designed so the overall popular vote would not determine who the president is. States determine the presidency and we vote within our states to tell the states who we want them to elect. That's how it's suppose to work. I'm not sure why after all this time, that's still not sinking in to you.
It's not working exactly the way it was intended to work.
The cap on the number of Representatives in the House has skewed representational numbers, so that the people are not equally represented in the legislature. That imbalance spills over to the electoral college. Representatives weren't supposed to represent more than a million constituents in one district, and half of that in a different district.
The point of this post is that the EC is going to continue to get less and less representative of the actual vote as populations continue to shift from small towns and rural areas into big metro areas countrywide.
A thought rather than doing away with the EC entirely (what I want, but won't get more than likely) is to redraw congressional districts nationwide to be less partisan, and to have states move away from the current winner-take-all to what Nebraska does sort of, have each congressional district's vote go to who won in that district and then whichever candidate won more districts in that state could get both senatorial votes.
Sound fair?
Sure, and three fourths of the states, and the low population centers won't have a say in who their elected representatives are.
Let's change the NFL season rules to the most points earned all season, and not their record of games won or loss.
Have never been a fan of the EC since I started voting 12 year's. One of the reason stopped voting. Did vote this election even knowing the candidate I picked wouldn't win my State. Had other reasons for voting for them. Think EC votes should follow similar suit to how Maine does it. Also the territories should have EC votes.
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.
Some states have penalties if their electors go against the popular vote in their state, but it's not unconstitutional for them to do so.
I have no doubt that Trump will be inaugurated next month. He. however, was very critical of the EC in 2012. Did you have a problem when he tweeted out about it in 2012, calling it a disaster for democracy and saying the American people should revolt?
the reason the federal law or the constitution say nothing about electors, other than that they are to get together and place their vote for president, is because it is up to the STATES to determine how the electors are chosen and distributed. every state has chosen to allow the public to choose the electors, and most are winner take all states.
but california, for instance, could decide tomorrow to eliminate the public vote for president every four years, and have the state legislature chose the electors for the state and let them vote their conscious in the electoral college. wouldnt that create some chaos?
It's not working exactly the way it was intended to work.
The cap on the number of Representatives in the House has skewed representational numbers, so that the people are not equally represented in the legislature. That imbalance spills over to the electoral college. Representatives weren't supposed to represent more than a million constituents in one district, and half of that in a different district.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of electors is determined by the population of each state by the national census which happens every 10 years, not the number of representatives the state has. The number of Representatives a state has, has no influence in the number of electors given to that state in the EC.
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.
