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.
Keep it. It has worked, and worked well, for our entire country's history, including this and the last century.
There are 50 states. 2-4 should not dominate.
In the current arrangement 4 already dominate.
Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. These four states have more power than any others. There are a few more that could be considered powerful depending on your definition. Even by those standards, between 39-45 states are left in the dust.
The entire election is dependent on just swing states. If you don't live in a swing state, you might as well stay home (and this is exactly the problem).
The "solution", if one were actually needed (which it is not), would be for each state to allot its electoral votes by congressional district, since that's how the state's electors are numerated. The remaining two votes (for the senators) would go to the state winner, or split if a tie.
Want to see real political change? Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Scurrilous, despicable, condescending personal attacks on voters reflect the moral vacuity and intellectual disability of the attacker.
When it was enacted, only those with land could vote. Also, slaves were 3/5 of a person constitutionally, women couldn't vote, black men couldn't vote (until 1870 technically, but in reality 1965).
So yes, let's go ahead and default to the founding father's intentions.
It really is amazing how anyone would be okay with dynamically scaling power across the people. The electoral college is an antiquated system that disproportionately gives power to smaller states per person.
For instance, in Wyoming there are 3 electoral votes. When compared to the population, this is 143,000 people per electoral vote.
In California there are 55 votes, that's 500,000 people per electoral vote. That means that the people of Wyoming have 3/5s the voting power of Californians. In what world is this a fair system? Only a handful of states decide the election, which means those running don't even need to bother with the majority. What a nonsense system!
The "flaws" you note are the strengths of the system. 55 to 3 seems pretty wrong otherwise.
Oh, and that "3/5ths of a person" is and has been a lie since it was first uttered.
The "flaws" you note are the strengths of the system. 55 to 3 seems pretty wrong otherwise.
Oh, and that "3/5ths of a person" is and has been a lie since it was first uttered.
The three-fifths compromise was a thing. It gave more power to the south despite the fact that the slaves couldn't vote in the first place.
Giving some people nearly 4 times the power of others is hardly a balanced system.
I say we get rid of voting altogether and become a dictatorship. At least then people wouldn't be under the illusion that "we are the government".
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.
