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.
"Of Americans" not a bunch of limousine liberals and their minion welfare class.
Really? Is that the best argument available? So anybody waiting any change is either a super rich oligarch or a welfare recipient? C'mon you can do better than that surely?
Please explain why the electoral college needs to go and how the smaller states and rural areas dont matter?
Also, why didnt't abolishing of the college come up when democrats won elections?
The interest of each person in our country is important. Geographical areas should not be granted more political and voting power, just because of their expanse of sparsely-populated territory.
The interest of each person in our country is important. Geographical areas should not be granted more political and voting power, just because of their expanse of sparsely-populated territory.
There are also regional interests. That is what the EC is designed to protect. It was a good idea in 1787, and it's a good idea now.
I wish we had an EC system at the state level here. A few years ago, Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen wanted a new tax-funded stadium. A statewide vote was held, and 29 of 39 counties voted it down. But 10 high-population counties around Seattle voted yes, and the measure passed by 51%. Allen, then the 6th richest man in the world, got his $1 billion worth of welfare money.
So farmers should get double votes? That doesn't seem to make sense, lots of people do useful things in an economy but you don't get extra votes depending on what job you do.
Ok, so look at the voting age population of those MSAs, you're not going to get a result where the top 5 make up a majority of the US electorate, if anything the proportion of voters in those areas would be lower as the big metro areas have bigger proportions of non-citizens who can't vote.
The idea that any candidate could win based only on voters in the top 5 metro areas is just plain wrong.
Right after I submitted my posts I noticed I wrote "metropolitan areas" (because I was thinking of the lopsided voting trends of the metros), so I went in to edit my post to read "States" instead of metropolitan areas, and submitted, but I guess it didn't go through.
Your responses are factually correct, but unfortunately they don't reflect what I intended write. Sorry about that.
People vote. States don't vote except in some peculiar 18th century vestigial tool to control and limit the voice of the people. That tool is long outmoded and unnecessary, if it ever was. The Senate was, at one time, filled with people who were not elected by the people but were selected by the state legislatures. We got rid of that a long time ago and the Electoral College needs to go as well.
A person's vote in Wyoming carries the same weight as a person in Pennsylvania. The argument that without the EC a candidate won't visit a small state is a ridiculous reason to keep it. A two-hour stop over in East Podunk in some tiny state will not somehow infuse the candidate with clear insight into the local issues. It works just the opposite. Some clown shows up harping about a wall and the locals forget all about their poisoned water supply or farm foreclosures or job losses.
People vote. States don't vote except in some peculiar 18th century vestigial tool to control and limit the voice of the people. That tool is long outmoded and unnecessary, if it ever was. The Senate was, at one time, filled with people who were not elected by the people but were selected by the state legislatures. We got rid of that a long time ago and the Electoral College needs to go as well.
A person's vote in Wyoming carries the same weight as a person in Pennsylvania. The argument that without the EC a candidate won't visit a small state is a ridiculous reason to keep it. A two-hour stop over in East Podunk in some tiny state will not somehow infuse the candidate with clear insight into the local issues. It works just the opposite. Some clown shows up harping about a wall and the locals forget all about their poisoned water supply or farm foreclosures or job losses.
That's a local issue. A wall is a national issue. The president presides over national interests, not your local ones.
you are almost right. The Founders fully intended to create a system that suppressed the mob. The founders wrote extensively about this. they understood that Direct Democracy was "Mob Rule" and they spoke about the fact that the meaning of "Mob Rule" was "he who controls the mob, RULES"
So nearly every time the mob has prevailed in the Electoral College and by huge margins as Trump did.
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.
