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.
Yes the poor are doing so well thats why life expectancy has declined in the US. Thats not the sign of a healthy nation and having a big screen tv or a iphone doesn't change that.
Every single vote already counts. Just because you lose, it doesn't mean your vote wasn't counted. It means you didn't have enough votes for things to go your way.
No it doesn't.
Most votes in this country don't count because of winner-takes-all systems and the EC.
Because the way our system is set up. We are a federation of independent states. States vote directly for the president, the individual voter does not. States don't vote 40 percent for one person and 60 percent for the other. When you vote in a presidential election, you are telling your state who you want your state to elect. That's where your vote goes. Your vote is not thrown away anymore than if you lose in a direct election.
Except these votes are made by individual electors. They can theoretically vote any way, even against the vote of the people.
All the wishing in the world isn't going to change the EC. Smaller states will never go along with it, including many liberal smaller states. States will not make themselves be less important because they have smaller populations. They are equal in power, that's why each state has two senators regardless of size. The concept is brilliant, not antiquated.
Small states are already irrelevant.
The action isn't in Wyoming or Delaware. It is in swing states.
Because the way our system is set up. We are a federation of independent states. States vote directly for the president, the individual voter does not. States don't vote 40 percent for one person and 60 percent for the other. When you vote in a presidential election, you are telling your state who you want your state to elect. That's where your vote goes. Your vote is not thrown away anymore than if you lose in a direct election.
I understand that, it just doesn't seem like the fairest or most democratic way to do things.
The US isn't a direct democracy, it's a representative republic. As such, the Founders in their wisdom understood the tyranny of the few high population states dictating policy they favored over the wishes of the agricultural and small states. We see this in action in states like Washington, Illinois, Oregon and California where 1 or 2 metro areas can outvote the rest of the state.
Every vote does count when in presidential elections the electoral representatives are chosen by the state. My state is the 4th largest in the nation, but we have a very low population and only 3 electoral votes. We don't have much say in presidential politics, in fact, it's rare for a candidate to even campaign here. But we are still represented because of the electoral college and have our place at the table.
The losers of the 2016 election would wholeheartedly support the electoral college if it always voted their way, but it doesn't and is a more accurate reflection of the will of the country as a whole. My state doesn't have a lot of impact on federal policy, we only have one representative in the house, but we are on equal footing in the senate with 2 senators same as New York or California. This is the equality the Founders strove so hard to create as nothing like it had ever been seen in history with the possible exception of ancient Rome, but the Roman senators were still the nobility, not really representing the will of the people.
I don't always like the way the elections go either, but there's nothing wrong with the system. The Founders were incredible geniuses and keen observers of human nature. They saw exactly what is going on today with one side trying to skew the results of elections to their benefit at the expense of the whole.
Sour grapes are no reason to do away with the protections the Founders built into our laws for the benefit of the whole country instead of just the few.
The US isn't a direct democracy, it's a representative republic. As such, the Founders in their wisdom understood the tyranny of the few high population states dictating policy they favored over the wishes of the agricultural and small states. We see this in action in states like Washington, Illinois, Oregon and California where 1 or 2 metro areas can outvote the rest of the state.
Every vote does count when in presidential elections the electoral representatives are chosen by the state. My state is the 4th largest in the nation, but we have a very low population and only 3 electoral votes. We don't have much say in presidential politics, in fact, it's rare for a candidate to even campaign here. But we are still represented because of the electoral college and have our place at the table.
The losers of the 2016 election would wholeheartedly support the electoral college if it always voted their way, but it doesn't and is a more accurate reflection of the will of the country as a whole. My state doesn't have a lot of impact on federal policy, we only have one representative in the house, but we are on equal footing in the senate with 2 senators same as New York or California. This is the equality the Founders strove so hard to create as nothing like it had ever been seen in history with the possible exception of ancient Rome, but the Roman senators were still the nobility, not really representing the will of the people.
I don't always like the way the elections go either, but there's nothing wrong with the system. The Founders were incredible geniuses and keen observers of human nature. They saw exactly what is going on today with one side trying to skew the results of elections to their benefit at the expense of the whole.
Sour grapes are no reason to do away with the protections the Founders built into our laws for the benefit of the whole country instead of just the few.
I agree with your comments, here, MTSilvertip, and, I'm a die hard Democrat. I see no reason to abandon the EC and most reasons to keep it intact.
From what I understand the 'winner takes all' system off pledged electors from a state all voting for the same person is not what the finding fathers wanted at all.
Quote:
Alexander Hamilton described the Founding Fathers' view of how electors would be chosen:
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks].
They assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district." In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.
Some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate. So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities." Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.
When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]." According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate". Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay:
The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].
The Founding Fathers assumed that electors would be elected by the citizens of their district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.
It just counts towards your state's electoral votes.
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.
