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.
I have tried to explain the part in bold more than once, and way too many people on both sides still don't seem to get it. Eliminating the EC would not give inordinate power to any state, it would give equal power to each individual voter, regardless of location.
That's not what our Republic is based upon. Our Republic is a Union of States. If you want to support a leader, support one that can win the most state electorate....or don't, but don't change the foundation of this country.
This is pure hyperbole. All the popular vote does is ensure that every citizen gets an equal say in electing the President regardless of their geographic location.
You do get an equal say and you get the same say as other voting residents of that state, but your state voting power is not the same. Your states power is fixed for the Senate, and determined by Census every 10 years in allocating House of Representatives.
If we want everything equal, why don't we also divvy up the share of the Federal expenditures last year divide it into people of voting age and send each an equal bill? Fair taxes, right?
Or perhaps you need a construct that's a bit more nuanced to keep everyone working together.
No, what's fair would be to have a popular vote. Proportional representation among electors is still ridiculous, as it's not eliminating the issue of voters in small states having their votes count 4x as much as large states. The means to get to a popular vote, however, is extremely difficult.
There was never this brouhaha about the electoral college until Trump won. If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college these same democrats would think it's the best thing in the world.
Wrong. Multiple times in history it has been raised. And have the republicans been for abolishing the EC? yep.
You do get an equal say and you get the same say as other voting residents of that state, but your state voting power is not the same. Your states power is fixed for the Senate, and determined by Census every 10 years in allocating House of Representatives.
If we want everything equal, why don't we also divvy up the share of the Federal expenditures last year divide it into people of voting age and send each an equal bill? Fair taxes, right?
Or perhaps you need a construct that's a bit more nuanced to keep everyone working together.
No, I'm not getting an equal say as the voters from a smaller state, when it comes to voting for President. That's simply a fact. I don't care that I'm getting an equal to say to voters in New York. I want an equal say to voters in North Dakota, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Ohio, etc. That's what's fair, it should be the people electing the President, not the states. It makes no sense that our votes to go to selecting "electors", who are essentially a legal fiction at this point, who then select the President. It's completely antiquated. Smaller states are ensured adequate representation in our government through the assignment of senators and representatives. There's no reason to have our votes in the Presidential elections in actuality go to "electors", where their only function is to give extra weight to a voter from a smaller state.
I don't see how your comment relating to federal expenditures has anything to do with voting to pick our President.
Regardless of constitutional hurdles to overcome in getting to this point, the popular vote is what's fair. To me, this conversation is worth having, because however long it takes to get there (perhaps decades), I think people like you and me discussing the merits of one way or the other will help us get there.
There was never this brouhaha about the electoral college until Trump won. If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college these same democrats would think it's the best thing in the world.
This brouhaha has been going on for many years. Trump is only the latest chapter.
No, I'm not getting an equal say as the voters from a smaller state, when it comes to voting for President. That's simply a fact. I don't care that I'm getting an equal to say to voters in New York. I want an equal say to voters in North Dakota, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Ohio, etc. That's what's fair, it should be the people electing the President, not the states. It makes no sense that our votes to go to selecting "electors", who are essentially a legal fiction at this point, who then select the President. It's completely antiquated. Smaller states are ensured adequate representation in our government through the assignment of senators and representatives. There's no reason to have our votes in the Presidential elections in actuality go to "electors", where their only function is to give extra weight to a voter from a smaller state.
I don't see how your comment relating to federal expenditures has anything to do with voting to pick our President.
Regardless of constitutional hurdles to overcome in getting to this point, the popular vote is what's fair. To me, this conversation is worth having, because however long it takes to get there (perhaps decades), I think people like you and me discussing the merits of one way or the other will help us get there.
Then focus on the REAL problem, the cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives, which skews representation wildly. Remove the cap, and make representation more equal. The electoral college isn't the problem.
No, I'm not getting an equal say as the voters from a smaller state, when it comes to voting for President. That's simply a fact. I don't care that I'm getting an equal to say to voters in New York. I want an equal say to voters in North Dakota, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Ohio, etc. That's what's fair, it should be the people electing the President, not the states. It makes no sense that our votes to go to selecting "electors", who are essentially a legal fiction at this point, who then select the President. It's completely antiquated. Smaller states are ensured adequate representation in our government through the assignment of senators and representatives. There's no reason to have our votes in the Presidential elections in actuality go to "electors", where their only function is to give extra weight to a voter from a smaller state.
I don't see how your comment relating to federal expenditures has anything to do with voting to pick our President.
Regardless of constitutional hurdles to overcome in getting to this point, the popular vote is what's fair. To me, this conversation is worth having, because however long it takes to get there (perhaps decades), I think people like you and me discussing the merits of one way or the other will help us get there.
The popular vote is fair to you.
It is not fair to anyone who doesn't want California, Illinois, New York, and a few other large states to run everything.
Get used to the electoral college.
The popular vote is fair to you.
It is not fair to anyone who doesn't want California, Illinois, New York, and a few other large states to run everything.
Get used to the electoral college.
No, it's fair period. I've debunked this argument anywhere between 5 and 10 times on here, but this thread is entirely too active. California's voting electorate made up less than 10% of the population and it went 60/40 for Democrats in the last election. Please explain how 6% of the vote decides how the country is run. There's no locality benefit that a Californian gets voting in the presidential election. You don't get any extra say in who becomes President merely be virtue of residing in that state.
However, under our current system, a Wyoming citizen counts for 3.7 Californians.
So, truly, explain, how would "the large states run everything"? What does that mean to you? Are you including Texas and Georgia in that calculation? It's astounding to me that when questioned, none of you (so far) have been able to state how the large states would hold all the sway in who becomes President. The fact is, they don't. All the popular vote is, at base, is more people voting for a candidate than the other. That's it. The "states" have nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Then focus on the REAL problem, the cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives, which skews representation wildly. Remove the cap, and make representation more equal. The electoral college isn't the problem.
Well, the electoral college is the problem, but I would certainly accept this as a fair compromise.
The popular vote is fair to you.
It is not fair to anyone who doesn't want California, Illinois, New York, and a few other large states to run everything.
Get used to the electoral college.
So a tiny state with more cows than people should have a bigger say in who our President is than a state with a large population? Please explain the logic behind that.
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.
