Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can trust "them", I would rather not though.
Electors have voted differently than the popular vote, not because Hitler was running for office either. It's fine having electors, in my opinion, as long as they reflect the state's popular vote.
Actually, you'll pretty much have to. If they wanted to screw you over they could quite easily. All they need to do is break the law and vote for whoever they want and then get pardoned.
Once they did, in 1836. Hasn't happened in 170 years, and it has never changed the outcome of an election.
I would "rather!" not. Actually they can break away from the popular vote without breaking the law.
and you propose what exacltley? What's the alternative? Rule by minority? Debate till everyone agrees?
What exactly do you call giving states like Vt, CT, NH and those other timy states you mentioned an equal vote with states like CA, FL. TX and NY?
If that isn't giving the minority a disproportionate vote to its size I don't what is.
You need to loosen up that chinstrap and let some oxygen in. What part of overhauling a flawed electoral college is not mutually inclusive with taking away states rights is it that is beyond your comprehension?
My argument is leftist? You mean my argument is liberal? So fuckin be it. What's your point? I'm not some ass-kissing, cowtowing, ball-less Republican, and if you ever thought THAT, you thought wrong.
Your argument ignores everything that doesn't blindly support the status quo. For instance the two times I have explained in 3rd grade level English twice exactly what I mean, and it certainly doesn't add up to any position you have assumed for me.
so now we're back tracking from we need to get rid of the EC to it just needs fixing, huh?
and I'm the one that needs a chill pill? I'm a conservative, not a republican. You don't gain a lot of credibility accusing someone of assuming positions then turning around and doing the exact same thing.
The only two argument's you've made are first that the EC must be disolved, then backtracking to say it needs fixing. And despite backttracking the difference between those two things is night and day. The first has massive would have massive repurcussions on the principles this country was founded. You may want to consider for just a moment that the founders knew what they were doing. Now if you're really for the second, I can get behind that.
As far as assuming how candidates would campaign that isn't an assumption. that's called being practical. If you wanna win you gotta get the votes and they aint in Nebraskas, or Kansas, or Oklahoma.
The founders established the EC because they were afraid that in a large country the populace might not know who the presidential candidates are, and pick a really terrible obviously bad one. There was no telephone, tv, etc, etc in those days.
Considering that we live in the 21st century now with those advances, no, the founders didn't know what would come.
And actually, yes, there are votes in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. In fact those voters would be courted the exact same as they are now if not more. After all Democrats would go to those places if they knew that every vote counted, and it wasn't the case that they needed to get over 50% to get anything counted at all.
There really isn't any politics behind why I think the EC is important. It's a purely practical rationale. I hate to keep beating this particualr dead horse, but it just doesn't make any logical sense for a candiate to waste his/her time campaigning in places that aren't gonna yield many votes.
I think the bigger picture is that the concept that we are a Republic has been lost on most people. The media along with politicians at election time have lead us to believe your vote in the voting booth represents something it doesn't.
The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is that if you want to do away with the EC, a concept based on the fundamental principles under which our country was structured, then I think that requires a real discussion as to whether you do indeed want to move to a true democracy or abide by the system that's in place.
The President is not the "President of the People." He is the President of the "United States." States being the keyword here. The electoral college was designed so that the President is elected by the states and not by popular vote of the people. If we elect leaders by popular vote, then why would Wyoming even want to remain a state? As it is now they have a much more elevated stance in decided an election than they would if it the popular vote were to be the deciding factor. The original purpose was to elect "qualified" candidates not "popular" ones. We are a republic of states, not a people's republic. Just my opinion.
Why would Wyoming want to remain a state?
It doesn't really matter. That issue was decided during the civil war. I doubt they will try to secede.
The President is not the "President of the People." He is the President of the "United States." States being the keyword here. The electoral college was designed so that the President is elected by the states and not by popular vote of the people. If we elect leaders by popular vote, then why would Wyoming even want to remain a state? As it is now they have a much more elevated stance in decided an election than they would if it the popular vote were to be the deciding factor. The original purpose was to elect "qualified" candidates not "popular" ones. We are a republic of states, not a people's republic. Just my opinion.
What exactly do you call giving states like Vt, CT, NH and those other timy states you mentioned an equal vote with states like CA, FL. TX and NY?
If that isn't giving the minority a disproportionate vote to its size I don't what is.
And the people in the United States should decide who their President is. If a democrat votes in a heavily Republican state their vote should count, If a Republican votes in a heavily Democratic state their vote should count. We should have the amount of electors awarded reflect what the popular vote is in that state. Not just reward all electors to a candidate when acheives over 50% of the popular vote.
What exactly do you call giving states like Vt, CT, NH and those other timy states you mentioned an equal vote with states like CA, FL. TX and NY?
If that isn't giving the minority a disproportionate vote to its size I don't what is.
Sure they do -- they count in who gets the electors for that state.And the people in the United States should decide who their President is. If a democrat votes in a heavily Republican state their vote should count, If a Republican votes in a heavily Democratic state their vote should count.
Proportional representation is certainly possible -- but it will rarely change anything. Talk to your state legislature.We should have the amount of electors awarded reflect what the popular vote is in that state.
No one collects the popular vote.Question, if we are to let electors from the states decide solely who the President is, then why even go through the facade of collecting a popular vote.
States did not always allow its electors to be put to a vote. No reason that they need to now.Just let the state legislators decide who the next President is going to be.
so now we're back tracking from we need to get rid of the EC to it just needs fixing, huh?
Nope. I said quote "dump the electoral college" unquote. Without asking a single question, you just assumed what I meant by that and jumped in both feet first with your one-sided, closed-minded point of view.
and I'm the one that needs a chill pill? I'm a conservative, not a republican. You don't gain a lot of credibility accusing someone of assuming positions then turning around and doing the exact same thing.
Try again. I told you what I was NOT. I did not say you were anything. Yet another erroneous assumption on your part. Try reading what is there, not what you think is there.
The only two argument's you've made are first that the EC must be disolved, then backtracking to say it needs fixing. And despite backttracking the difference between those two things is night and day. The first has massive would have massive repurcussions on the principles this country was founded. You may want to consider for just a moment that the founders knew what they were doing. Now if you're really for the second, I can get behind that.
No backtracking involved. Again, try asking for clarification next time instead of assuming.
I don't base my thinking on what I assume the founders were thinking, and knowing what they were doing then and how it applies now are not necessarily the same.
The founders were wealthy men who set themselves up to presume to think for everyone. Kinda like the ellectoral college does.
As far as assuming how candidates would campaign that isn't an assumption. that's called being practical. If you wanna win you gotta get the votes and they aint in Nebraskas, or Kansas, or Oklahoma.
