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.
The Electoral College was designed to balance the rights and power of the individual States with that of the populace of the United States; in the same way as the bicameral Congress was to balance the power of the States (Senate) with the popular representation in the House of Representatives.
Geez, I learned this stuff in 4th grade...what are our schools teaching? Wait, I have four kids in school, I know only too well what they're teaching, but that's another subject for another day.
Without the Electoral College, you would have large populations in major cities (liberals) deciding elections. The smaller states, less populated states would not have a voice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvymvy
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
The Electoral College was designed to balance the rights and power of the individual States with that of the populace of the United States
I don't see a balance, but a takeover when the winner of a majority in a state gets all. If a candidate wins 20 out of 34, he/she shouldn't get all 34, but keep 20 with the other people keeping their share. Why not?
I don't see a balance, but a takeover when the winner of a majority in a state gets all. If a candidate wins 20 out of 34, he/she shouldn't get all 34, but keep 20 with the other people keeping their share. Why not?
You answered your own question. The scenario in your second sentence describes a situation where one of the two competing entities which I described earlier prevails. Rather, the electoral college is designed to give a measure of power to both competing entities in the election of the President.
Whether it currently provides the correct balance or not, is up to debate. However, the question was asked, what the benefits are, etc. Asked and answered.
You answered your own question. The scenario in your second sentence describes a situation where one of the two competing entities which I described earlier prevails. Rather, the electoral college is designed to give a measure of power to both competing entities in the election of the President.
Whether it currently provides the correct balance or not, is up to debate. However, the question was asked, what the benefits are, etc. Asked and answered.
How are they competing entities, trying for a balance when one overrides the other? Why should they be competing and not contributing as is?
In all endeavors there are natural tensions that need to be reconciled for the greatest overall good. Our founding fathers understood this. As for the rest of your question, I don't even know what you're trying to say.
I don't see a balance, but a takeover when the winner of a majority in a state gets all. If a candidate wins 20 out of 34, he/she shouldn't get all 34, but keep 20 with the other people keeping their share. Why not?
Winner take all has NOTHING to do with the electoral college. How electors are chosen is a STATE issue, not a federal one.
Winner take all has NOTHING to do with the electoral college. How electors are chosen is a STATE issue, not a federal one.
The electors are chosen based on US constitution, and all states follow it. The issue I have with the current set up is, why does the majority (in a state) completely override the minority? The current set up discourages many voters, as they don't feel their region is represented. Many of my friends in Texas feel that their vote won't count anyway, and the entire state would be going to republican candidate anyway (at least as it stands right now). Likewise, I'm sure many people feel in states that lean democratic.
Besides, one of the reasons states were given a little protection was with the assumption that they were closer to the local populace than the federal government could be, with about 13 million people (IIRC) to go with. Now we have cities that get close to the population (Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex has a population of about 6.5 million).
What is wrong with keeping what you got? Like I said earlier, keeping 20 of 34 in Texas, if you got those 20, instead of getting all 34.
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.
