Do you know how democrats plan to nullify or get around the electoral collage ? Think it can't happen, think again, it c (house of representatives, Clinton)
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.
Nebraska and Maine have already switched to some version of proportionality instead of Winner Take All.
Each state allocates its Electors as it sees fit. Most do WTA, some do proportional. Each state can do as they like, per the US Constitution.
If the "compact" thing does anything poorly, it tells voters in State A that their vote doesn't matter because State B with way more people voted a certain way, and "way more people" essentially dictate your vote. Basically, Colorado tells their people that California will now be voting for Colorado, and Colorado votes are meaningless. But it's all good because California will be voting for half the country, so it won't just be Colorado voters being disenfranchised...everyone will be disenfranchised! Feel better?
So if the PV difference came to .001% but the EC vote a much bigger margin, would the loser be able to demand a nation wide recount? That would be a mess. Picture Florida times 51.
I never understood the argument that the Electoral College stands as some type of protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority by subjecting the majority to the tyranny of the minority.
"The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.) The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote." Presidential election: A map showing the vote power of all 50 states.
I never understood the argument that the Electoral College stands as some type of protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority by subjecting the majority to the tyranny of the minority.
Then you don't understand history of the EC.
The single most compelling reason for the EC is... territory expansion in the infant years of our nation. Why? well.... why would a territory join the Union (as a state) if the voices (votes) in NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington controlled the politics of the nation, with little or no regard to the new states entering the Union? How would a rural state like Ohio benefit from the urban needs of the eastern cities?
You might have a valid point but you don't !!! The facts don't agree with your opinion !!!
You posted an opinion piece. There is no way to justify what you are saying, why cant the republicans get a majority, is it because people are too stupid to vote for their long term interest instead want freebies? Its not a good argument. I dont think the pact violates the constitution, the constitution gives the state goverment the power of how to allocate their votes, this is playing by the rules.
I largely think its a moot point, I do think we need to roll back federal power and give more power back to the states but also the counties, I feel like that is the only way forward. Extend the democratic experiments to also be social experiments on a county level, let the cities in the red states determine what they want on their county level, let states do what they want with their education system, if your religion tells you that 2+2=5 then thats fine, your accreditation just wont be valid out of state. Do whatever you want under your rock and let me know how it turns out.
The single most compelling reason for the EC is... territory expansion in the infant years of our nation. Why? well.... why would a territory join the Union (as a state) if the voices (votes) in NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington controlled the politics of the nation, with little or no regard to the new states entering the Union? How would a rural state like Ohio benefit from the urban needs of the eastern cities?
duh
But we don't have that problem today.
The problem we have today is that it seems, with increasing frequency, we are electing presidents who do not have the support of a majority of the nation's voters.
"The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.) The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote." Presidential election: A map showing the vote power of all 50 states.
I understand exactly why the EC exists. It was discussed extensively in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers and it has literally nothing to do with making sure that the minority is not subjected to the tyranny of the majority, as the poster to whom I was responding had claimed.
When the Mob rules the American experiment is over !!! Something like the French Revolution will become the system !!! The Mob can turn on a dime !!!
Lol. What you call "mob rule" is what the world knows as democracy. The EC lets a minority of people run the country, which is akin to apartheid. The right loves the EC, and gerrymandering, because that is the only way it can win. It cannot win with a level playing field. That alone should tell you there is something wrong with the right.
I understand exactly why the EC exists. It was discussed extensively in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers and it has literally nothing to do with making sure that the minority is not subjected to the tyranny of the majority, as the poster to whom I was responding had claimed.
Now it functions to allow the minority to choose the President despite the will of the majority. I don't see how or why that would be a desirable outcome.
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.
