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.
Why not simply have a new constitutional amendment that completely abolishes the electoral college and have a pure popular vote?
That was my question. More importantly, why do the democrats still use a system like that in their own primary process?
P.S. I'm not fully on board with the idea mind you, but the people that have protested it vehemently are sitting on their hands, makes it seem like it wasn't something they really want to change....but rather just complain about.
Some states also aportion their votes along their popular votes, unlike California where 55 electoral votes are "winner take all". It is however the State legislature decides. The Founders trusted the people to handle things the way they want in the various states. If you don't like how your states does it, vote for different politicians who will change things to the way you like. If your vote is swamped because most people don't agree with you, then move to another state.
I laugh at people who think they have more knowledge and brilliance than the Founders had collectively. "Oh, these 100 brilliant minds who spent a decade intensely studying this issue are just wrong!
So these are the opinions you get from people with no understanding as to why the Founders did what they did in creating our government system? Well, it is obvious you have skimmed over that section of a high school history book. Not many of the Founders studied the pros and cons of a monarchy, or studied and considered every government system used on earth up top that time. In fact, James Madison was probably the only one, and possibly Alexander Hamilton. Before the convention, Madison studied republics and confederacies throughout history, such as ancient Greece and contemporary Switzerland, The initial draft of the Constitution was based mostly on his draft.
BTW, there weren't 100 brilliant minds who spent a decade intensely studying this issue. There were a total of 55 delegates who attended sessions of the Constitutional Convention, and are considered the Framers of the Constitution, although only 39 delegates actually signed the Constitution. Only 30 to 40 delegates were present on a typical day. Rhode Island refused to send any delegates. New Hampshire delegates would not join the convention until July 23, not long after an initial draft had been approved. After two of New York's three delegates left the convention in mid-July and did not return, New York was left unable to vote on any further proposals at the convention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Why not simply have a new constitutional amendment that completely abolishes the electoral college and have a pure popular vote?
Because an amendment takes a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratification by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Because an amendment takes a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratification by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
True. But if I have my own political party and have been using something like an electoral system, I can just change that via my own by-laws right?
In addition to the USA, there are twenty federal republics of individual sovereign states. Examples are Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, etc.
Of those, how many have a 10th Amendment that in both letter and spirit declares each state a sovereign entity that has every power that was not explicitly enumerated as a power of the national government?
Of those, how many have a 10th Amendment that in both letter and spirit declares each state a sovereign entity that has every power that was not explicitly enumerated as a power of the national government?
Why don't you check their constitutions and get back to us.
No one should consider it fair or democratic that Texas has a senator for each 14,865,155 people and a representative for each 825,841; while Wyoming has a senator for each 290,000 people and a representative for each 581,075. It seems a person in Wyoming has a vote which counts for a lot more.
No one should consider it fair or democratic that Texas has a senator for each 14,865,155 people and a representative for each 825,841; while Wyoming has a senator for each 290,000 people and a representative for each 581,075. It seems a person in Wyoming has a vote which counts for a lot more.
The electoral college is an anachronism.
This is the way this country was built and it works pretty well, all things considered. It is common for a country to incentivize residing in thinly settled areas, in order to maintain control over its territory. We also subsidize uneconomical agriculture in the hinterlands, for similar reasons. One does not want to hollow out a country.
I am not suggesting that people would relocate to have a stronger vote, but voting is not the only way we favor rural areas. Interstate highways are yet another.
This is the way this country was built and it works pretty well, all things considered. It is common for a country to incentivize residing in thinly settled areas, in order to maintain control over its territory. We also subsidize uneconomical agriculture in the hinterlands, for similar reasons. One does not want to hollow out a country.
I am not suggesting that people would relocate to have a stronger vote, but voting is not the only way we favor rural areas. Interstate highways are yet another.
How about giving us an example of that?
The Electoral College is all about the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and what transpired that summer. Nothing else is relevant.
This is the way this country was built and it works pretty well, all things considered. It is common for a country to incentivize residing in thinly settled areas, in order to maintain control over its territory. We also subsidize uneconomical agriculture in the hinterlands, for similar reasons. One does not want to hollow out a country.
I think that the founders were more worried about the sway of places like PA, VA and NY than urban vs. rural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
I am not suggesting that people would relocate to have a stronger vote, but voting is not the only way we favor rural areas. Interstate highways are yet another.
Rural areas are also subsidized as to utilities, including high-speed internet, not to mention agricultural subsidies like milk price supports, sugar tariffs and CRP payments.
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.
