Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,382
- 1,830
You do have a great point though, if we completely scrap the electoral college how does say Wyoming have the same representation as say New York?
This is precisely the reason for the EC.
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 do have a great point though, if we completely scrap the electoral college how does say Wyoming have the same representation as say New York?
so much buffonery, on one thread.
The EC doesn't "force" candidates to campaign in small states.
Because of the EC, candidates pretty much only campaign in swing states. Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
They're not campaiging in either Vermont, New York, Montana, or California for the most part. There's nothing about the EC that makes them campaign in small states.
Small states already have disproportionate representation at the federal level. Wyoming has as many senators as California. And, in terms of choosing presidential candidates in the primaries, small states already have a disproportionate influence: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.
Why do you feel that way?
Although I follow you and agree that the states need equal representation. Wouldn't you admit that say a state like Maryland or Texas, receive very little attention during the general election because the canididates know how those states are going to vote. Texas- Republican, Maryland- Democrat
When are these states issues heard?
Because democracy is nothing but slavery to 49% of the people.
So someone's vote in Wyoming should be worth more than my vote just to satisfy some desire to see rural areas have more of a say than their populations warrant?
And just because something has always been done, doesn't mean it should continue to be. Until women's sufferage... only men could vote...oh yeah, WHITE men.....
Again, my comments have NOTHING to do with taking away states rights. Since the vote of the individual appears to be inconsequential in your argument, I don't see that I have any other point to make.
My initial comment was in reference to the state level, not the Federal level. Again, refer back to the sentence preceeding this one.
Bottom line is, while you have your prediction of what you think might occur as a result of using the popular vote, we can SEE the result of the electoral college voting its own interest first.
We have a government that is out of control and elected officials that do not represent the viewpoints of the people they are supposed to represent. We have a Federal government assuming more and more control and while eroding the very states rights you champion.
As I stated previously, why bother with the facade? The selling point "your vote counts?" Your vote counts if its in the electoral college's interest.
Yeah, score one for being a Republic and not a democracy.
Wherever the happy medium is between a republic and a democracy, we've lost sight of it.
I say, out with the electroal college and in with the popular vote...of course this means that had it been this way in 2000, Bush would never have been elected in the first place.
Small states already have disproportionate representation at the federal level. Wyoming has as many senators as California. And, in terms of choosing presidential candidates in the primaries, small states already have a disproportionate influence: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.
Unfortunately no you can't. if you take away the electoral college, the system that is designed to give all states proportionate representation, then why have states? What needs to be 'fixed' about the electoral college? If you remove the EC, then you have to do something about the fact that the small states now have no say in who gets elected. Your one vote equals one vote argument is BS because the majority of votes lie within limited geographic areas of the country and again any candidate that has a brain is gonna campaign where the most votes are and not where there are very few.
I don't drink coffee.
The US a Federal Republic, not a democracy.
The states, not the people, elect the President, because the President is not The People's representative on the Federal Gvmnt -- which is why the people do not have a right to vote or President.
There's no reason to change that.
Then you need to take that issue up with your state legislature, and lobby it to change the election law to award electors proportionally.
Of course, they might just decide to not put it to a vote at all - leaving you with no recourse other than trying to throw the legislature out of office.
And how would that be different if there were no states and thus no electoral college? Of course certain areas are going to vote certain ways.
Stating what you believe is irrelevant. The result of what you propose would be that states would not be represented fairly.
I don't assume any position of you other than what you have stated. What I'm saying is you have made an argument that the EC needs to be done away with. The purpose of the EC is to give all states a say. And as RGS noted the operative word is 'states'. Your vote does count.... at the state level. Saying there should not be an EC is clearly an argument against having a republic form of government, which is why I ask if you want to maintain that the EC should be gone, but you still believe in states rights, how do you propose with an EC gone that you make the vote fair to all the states?
the annoying think about your argument is that it's a solution that a leftist would come up with and you aren't a leftist. Saying there are problems with the EC and thus should be done away with is equivalent to something like some guns are used illegally so all guns should be banned or some innocent people have died from the death penalty so it should be thrown out.
and you propose what exacltley? What's the alternative? Rule by minority? Debate till everyone agrees?
The US a Federal Republic, not a democracy.
The states, not the people, elect the President, because the President is not The People's representative on the Federal Gvmnt -- which is why the people do not have a right to vote or President.
There's no reason to change that.
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. Just let the state legislators decide who the next President is going to be. I understand it is in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be changed.
the annoying think about your argument is that it's a solution that a leftist would come up with and you aren't a leftist. Saying there are problems with the EC and thus should be done away with is equivalent to something like some guns are used illegally so all guns should be banned or some innocent people have died from the death penalty so it should be thrown out.
I say, out with the electroal college and in with the popular vote...of course this means that had it been this way in 2000, Bush would never have been elected in the first place.
Wyoming has less representation than New York even with the electoral college.
Because the electors almost always vote the way the popular vote does. Its not exactly a facade...the electors don't have to vote the same way (according to federal law anyway...some states make them), but they do anyway.
No your right Larkinn "almost always". But shouldn't the popular votes in the states mandate how the electors vote?
No. Especially not now. We have a very strong tradition in this country of electors electing whoever wins the popular vote. For that to change something drastic would have to happen. If the voting populace wants to vote in Hitler, or someone who wants to re-enslave the blacks or such, I'd rather there be a process for over-ruling them.
The nice thing about large segments about the modern educated elite is that they aren't power hungry and accept that decision-making power often should rest in other peoples hands.