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.
exactly, a popular vote counts every persons vote equally, we don't have that now.
actually it does not...it gives power to the cities...and forgets all the other places, the places where everything is produced
I am looking at this from both micro and macro levels
say candidate "A" says screw the small states lets sell them to Canada and mexico, and let's give all benefits ONLY to the cities
so your CITY should ENSLAVE an entire set of states... mighty democratic of a thought pattern
the whole idea is that the EC makes it equal for a nation of STATES... this is not the peoples democracy of America.. it is the united STATES of America...
the electoral college is NEEDED
NewYorkcity(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED
nyc population 8.3 million
Wyoming 544k
Vermont 621k
n. Dakota 640k
Alaska 690k
s. Dakota 821k
Delaware 885k
Montana 974k
Rhode island 1.01 million
Hawaii 1.2 million
Maine 1.3 million
total 7.8 million
10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY
look at Chicago...ok the population of Chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of Nebraska is 1.8 million
should a citynegate a whole state???
should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1.8 million) of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1.8 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies
look at Phoenix...ok the population of Phoenix (A CITY) is 1.6 million..the entire STATE of Wyoming is 550k million
that is why if the above post I was talking at the state level...
should a citynegate a whole state???
should a urban jungle of 1.6 million out weigh an entire state of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 550k not count just because the city of 1.6 million says so...awfully fascist to think that way
the whole point is that ANY state could be a swing state.....
for example if trumpo was to say I will take care of NYC, screw the rest of the state.... all of a sudden NYC would be voting for trumpo (doesn't matter what ticket he is running on)… if a candidate (from either party, or even a 3rd party) can appeal to a particular population… then that state can easily be in play
back in 1992 Ross Perot took in 19.7m votes which certainly effected HWBushes 39m votes to the winner of BClinton with 44.9m votes.....ross got 19% of the vote
actually it does not...it gives power to the cities...and forgets all the other places, the places where everything is produced
See you are thinking in terms of city vs city state vs state, as opposed to each and every individual American having his/her say in who gets to spend 4 years at Pennsylvania AVE. no state involvement needed as you get with the electoral college. just simply "For the people by the people" we have a senate for all the states to have equal say, that's what it's there for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
I am looking at this from both micro and macro levels
say candidate "A" says screw the small states lets sell them to Canada and mexico, and let's give all benefits ONLY to the cities
so your CITY should ENSLAVE an entire set of states... mighty democratic of a thought pattern
For every voted to have an equal vote, yes that's a very "mighty democratic of a thought pattern"
Quote:
the whole idea is that the EC makes it equal for a nation of STATES... this is not the peoples democracy of America.. it is the united STATES of America...
But the president is the president of the people he represents the people he is in service (or should be) to the people.
Quote:
the electoral college is NEEDED
NewYorkcity(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED
nyc population 8.3 million
Wyoming 544k
Vermont 621k
n. Dakota 640k
Alaska 690k
s. Dakota 821k
Delaware 885k
Montana 974k
Rhode island 1.01 million
Hawaii 1.2 million
Maine 1.3 million
total 7.8 million
And you think the current system where one voter living in a trailer in Wyoming's vote counts more than than all the voters in 8 square blocks in Brooklyn? you think it's fair that their individual votes count less?
Quote:
10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY
look at Chicago...ok the population of Chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of Nebraska is 1.8 million
should a citynegate a whole state???
should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1.8 million) of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1.8 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies
look at Phoenix...ok the population of Phoenix (A CITY) is 1.6 million..the entire STATE of Wyoming is 550k million
But it's not states or cities that are voting it's the people... individual people.
Quote:
that is why if the above post I was talking at the state level...
should a citynegate a whole state???
should a urban jungle of 1.6 million out weigh an entire state of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 550k not count just because the city of 1.6 million says so...awfully fascist to think that way
Nope I want EVERY INDIVIDUAL American to have equal say.
We might start making some huge changes in our lifetime to make it a democracy instead of a constitutional republic. Maybe we can say evil white slave owning men setup a constitutional republic, since they were evil we should change it, everything they wrote and did is invalid since they owned slaves. With people starting to see George Washington and other founding fathers as evil, this is a true possibility. Countries do change, from one form or government to another. Usually this happens thru a revolution, a forceful change instead of a peaceful change.
Actually isn't it always thru a revolution?
Perhaps by the time America is majority colored, we will see a 100% Democracy. Wouldn't that be crazy. One day our kids will talk about how the USA was once a republic. "Back in my day, we had an electoral college." Would sound crazy like "back in my day a man could only marry a woman".
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected. The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes. The bill has passed at least one chamber in 9 additional states with 88 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA). A total of 3,408 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it. ___________________________________
I think we need this, it preserves a state based approach while at the same time counting all the popular votes instead of a pure winner-take-all system (see link for more explanation)
What need to be done is get rid of the winner takes all model. But CA and NY would never agree to it.
Nope I want EVERY INDIVIDUAL American to have equal say.
but that is NOT what you want... you want it where the candidate who gets just one more vote...DOMINATES over the population
for example the 2020 election
yes the people have spoken... Biden officially reaches 270 (remember this election still has yet to be certified), he wins
but just a thought for you.... trump has (currently) 71,043,149 votes...that's more than 5.1 million more votes than Hillary's vote count in 2016 of 65,853,625...and an increase of 8.67 million from his last election.... seems to me, that half the country, hates trump, and half the country likes trump or doesn't trust Biden...
think about that for a second...trump got 71 million votes.....Hillary could not do that...Obama could not do that... yes 71million is short of Biden's 75 million, so Biden won...but it does not mean that biden can dominate, the way you want.....
.… democracy (the way you want it) is 2 wolves and one lamb voting on what's for dinner
the Biden/Harris admin must realize this, his election is NOT a mandate and he NEEDS to heal this country...if he goes forward like Obama did ("elections have consequences, we won screw all you middleclass schmucks") he will just tear this country further apart..... lets see if the lefty Joe, who has done nothing for 47 years to help the middleclass, will heal this country, of tear it apart even more
but that is NOT what you want... you want it where the candidate who gets just one more vote...DOMINATES over the population
You mean like the governor of every state?
But let me get this straight, you don't want every person to have equal say in who runs the country?
What we have now weakens the votes of millions, some guy in Wyoming's individual vote carries 5X more power than my individual vote. you think that's fair? Also I live in a red state so my vote is not counted anyway unless the state flips, so 51% of the people in my state votes red and the red candidate gets my vote against my will, but in a popular vote I can be one of 10% that votes blue in my state but my candidate still gets my vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
for example the 2020 election
yes the people have spoken... Biden officially reaches 270 (remember this election still has yet to be certified), he wins
but just a thought for you.... trump has (currently) 71,043,149 votes...that's more than 5.1 million more votes than Hillary's vote count in 2016 of 65,853,625...and an increase of 8.67 million from his last election.... seems to me, that half the country, hates trump, and half the country likes trump or doesn't trust Biden...
actually it seems like 4 million more people hated trump, and If I'm honest I did not vote for biden(I'm a liberal and he is not a true liberal, he is more of a left leaning moderate) as much as I voted against trump and talking to my conservative friends much of that mentality went on on the other side as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
think about that for a second...trump got 71 million votes.....Hillary could not do that...Obama could not do that... yes 71million is short of Biden's 75 million, so Biden won...but it does not mean that biden can dominate, the way you want.....
So both parties had a higher voter turnout, factoring population growth the same thing happened in 92, also the vote was split 3 ways in that 92 election so people forget how large a % actually voted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
.… democracy (the way you want it) is 2 wolves and one lamb voting on what's for dinner
Conservatives like saying that but more often it's 40 lambs, 30 horses, 5 Rabbits, 15 Coyotes and 10 wolves voting on whether to implement a vegan menu
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
the Biden/Harris admin must realize this, his election is NOT a mandate and he NEEDS to heal this country...if he goes forward like Obama did ("elections have consequences, we won screw all you middleclass schmucks") he will just tear this country further apart..... lets see if the lefty Joe, who has done nothing for 47 years to help the middleclass, will heal this country, of tear it apart even more
And yet Obamas approval rating never dropped below 60%
No need, since each state can allot their electoral college votes any way they wish, just ask Maine and Nebraska.
What should happen, which is overdue by almost a century at this point, is the US House being properly representational. If Wyoming has 3 EC votes spread across 580k people, that means the lowest amount of representation in any state, using the House to offset the senators, is 580,000/3 = 1 rep per 193k people. If that were the case, California would have 204 reps and 2 senators, or 206 EC votes...and with a population of 39.5 million...THAT MAKES SENSE.
And if you did that, each state would be more representational internally as well. LA could have 70 reps, but given the size and density of LA, OK?
Thing is, the House doesn't want to dilute that K-Street cash among more than the current 435, so they want to convince you the EC is the problem, when it isn't. The level of representation in the House is 100% of the problem and has been since the 1940s.
This is the real problem. I get keeping the Senate as an "upper house" to control the tyranny of the majority, but the Presidency has become more and more unfairly skewed towards smaller states because of this situation with the house of reps.
I haven't read through all the responses so I don't know if this has been mentioned but I think a better form of the Electoral College is splitting the Electoral College votes based on the percentage of total votes received in a state. If say California goes 60/40 Democrat to Republican then the Democrat candidate gets 33 votes and the Republican candidate gets 22 votes. With this sort of system in place all states are in play not just the 7 to 12 states that are currently in play or the 7 to 10 states that would be in play during a popular election.
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.
