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.
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.
That is wrong. The number of Electoral votes is based on the number of representatives in the House of Representatives plus 2 for those in the Senate. This means Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of about 584,153. Colorado has 9 Electoral votes (3 times the amount of Wyoming) for a population of about 5.356 million (about 9.16 times the amount of Wyoming).
The EC is working EXACTLY as designed and if the population shifts more to big Metropolitan areas it will be even more necessary.
The US would have never been formed if it weren't for the EC. 10 states were pretty sure that they didn't want to be run over legislatively by Penn, Virginia and New York, so the EC was a compromise and a damn ingenious one.
You are basically NY, PENN and Virginia arguing "we have more population than you 10 little states why SHOULDN'T we decide everything"? We are the 10 little states saying "no thanks".
Last edited by chadgates; 12-09-2016 at 04:45 PM..
The EC is working EXACTLY as designed and if the population shifts more to big Metropolitan areas it will be even more necessary.
The US would have never been formed if it weren't for the EC. 10 states were pretty sure that they didn't want to be run over legislatively by Penn, Virginia and New York, so the EC was a compromise and a damn ingenious one.
You are basically NY, PENN and Virginia arguing we have more population that you 10 little states why SHOULDN'T we decide everything? We are the 10 little states saying "no thanks".
The EC decides the President who is the head of the executive branch. The legislative branch is the House of Representatives (based on population) and the Senate (2 per state). So a switch to popular vote would not cause the small states to be legislatively run over by the big states.
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?
We live in a federal republic with representative democracy. When you understand both of those concepts, we can have a fruitful discussion.
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?
Hillary had a 'built in' 55 electorals in Calif as a head start, she was ahead 55-0 at one point in the game, if you are a fan of the Democrats, you would want electorals to remain in place, you get a free 55 to start, you really only need 215 MORE to win. Trump will make sure there aren't any votes coming from Calif that don't belong, so 4 years from now, the margin of victory for the Dems in Calif will be much smaller, yet, the Dems are still likely to win those 55 votes, if the dems win calif popular vote slightly in 4 years as might be the case with a lot less eligible voters and a much more honest voting system, you get more of an advantage winning 55-0 in electorals vs winning 5 million to 4.8 million in 'popular vote' (picked those numbers out of thin air)
Dems don't need to change the system, they just need to run a better candidate, someone who's likeable, honest and has actual talent, you can't expect to win running the worst possible candidate we have seen in our lifetimes, get a better candidate and don't worry about the 'system'.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRIIV
That is wrong. The number of Electoral votes is based on the number of representatives in the House of Representatives plus 2 for those in the Senate. This means Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of about 584,153. Colorado has 9 Electoral votes (3 times the amount of Wyoming) for a population of about 5.356 million (about 9.16 times the amount of Wyoming).
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.
Your assertion about people movement is irrelevant without precise numbers. Not percentages of increase in movement, but aggregate numbers of rural and urban Americans.
There is no mandate for the electoral college to come close to matching the popular vote count. So, there is no mandate to enact change because the democrats lost no matter what the discrepancy. In spite of everyone misreading their high school civics textbooks, this is not a popular democracy. Period. End of story. Unless one is a PhD in political science, one's opinion on how this nation's electoral structure should change is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
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?
Nah...we're good. We have no motivation to compromise because the democrats lost. They wouldn't compromise with us if the tables were turned. That much we know. There is simply no way in heck that the conservatives are going to give one millimeter in regard to this complaint. It's not even a debate, but a complaint.
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.
