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.
Your stuck in the servant vs the served attitude. You'd make a fine King of England. We fought a revolution over this thinking. maybe you should go visit the liberty bell and re-learn American history.
Think man... think! You're promoting division not balance.
No. Democrats only want to get rid of the electoral college because Hillary lost the race. Just because you didn't win the game doesn't mean you get to change the rules.
If the Electoral College is abandoned for the principles of "people voting and not states" and "one person, one vote" then the primaries must be changed as well.
Primaries have:
-Super delegates
-States apportioned by population and partisan numbers
-States getting preferential placement in the voting queue
-States losing delegates if they adjust their primary date
-Caucuses that shun away workers that can't take several hours off of work to vote in a long caucus format
-Etc...
All of those are anti-democratic and follow along with the same reasons against the electoral college.
This is why I think a lot of the Electoral College complaints are merely political subterfuge to attack a system they think favors the opposition. Otherwise, why not change your primary on the principles that you supposedly advocate and you could change it today without a constitutional amendment if you sincerely believe on principle what you attack the electoral college for?
This is one that I can see both sides of the argument. I've lived in a small state for all of my adult life.
Yes, it's unfair that small states can get swamped by large states. It's equally unfair that a minority of voters can swamp the majority.
My only real conclusion is that if we are to maintain the idea that states are semi-independent members of a federal union, then we have to look harder at gerrymandering and voter repression within the states. I think this can be argued on the grounds that US citizens should have equal rights to vote wherever in the US they choose to live.
I would rather we go to a proportional vote system, where each candidate gets delegates based on the percentage of votes. "Winner take all" is the problem, not the electoral college. If a candidate gets 40% of a state's vote, they should get 40% of that state's electoral votes.
I would rather we go to a proportional vote system, where each candidate gets delegates based on the percentage of votes. "Winner take all" is the problem, not the electoral college. If a candidate gets 40% of a state's vote, they should get 40% of that state's electoral votes.
I like that, but it doesn't get rid of the problem that some states do a better job with maintaining fairer elections systems than others do.
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.
Do you think the electoral college should be abolished?
