How to fix the Electoral Vote. Every State should have one vote

[kaz]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

 

[TNHarley]

While I can somewhat agree, I don't see how a state with 7M people should have the same power as a state with 39M. (TN and CA)
Personally, I like it the way it is.

 

[TNHarley]

I would rather see this than just a popular vote, though.

 

[kaz]

While I can somewhat agree, I don't see how a state with 7M people should have the same power as a state with 39M. (TN and CA)
Personally, I like it the way it is.

They don't have the "same power." They only have the same say in President. Why should a State with 39M have any say over the internal operations of a State with 7M people? The primary purpose of the Federal government was supposed to be defense

 

[TooTall]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!

 

[SYTFE]

Someone does not understand the way the world works. Yikes.

 

[kaz]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!

Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I didn't say how we get there, only the way I think it should work. I mean duh

 

[Boss]

I disagree. I don't think the Electoral College needs fixing because it's not broken. This year's election is an example of exactly why it was instituted over a popular vote.

There are a couple of things that we should look at. First, states should adopt a system of apportioning electors based on their popular vote. There is no reason California's 55 electoral votes should've all gone to Hillary Clinton. A portion should have gone to Trump, indicative of those who voted for Trump.

Second, and probably more important, is that we need to repeal the 17th Amendment making the Senate elected by popular vote instead of state legislatures. The Senate was established to represent State interests, not the popular majority. That was represented by the House of Representatives and when we abandoned this, we essentially made the Senate a redundant body that no longer served it's intended purpose. Since that time, the States have increasingly lost all power on a federal level and their interests are no longer represented in Congress. As a result, we now have nitwits who seek to wipe out their relevance altogether by eliminating the Electoral College.

 

[TooTall]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!

Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I didn't say how we get there, only the way I think it should work. I mean duh

You are entitled to your opinion. That, and $5 will get you a cup at Starbucks. I like it the way it is for my 2 cents worth.

 

[kaz]

Someone does not understand the way the world works. Yikes.

Apparently that's you since you don't know the Constitution has 27 amendments

 

[kaz]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!

Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I didn't say how we get there, only the way I think it should work. I mean duh

You are entitled to your opinion. That and $5 will get you a cup at Starbucks.

It also entitles me to write an OP and start a thread

 

[TNHarley]

While I can somewhat agree, I don't see how a state with 7M people should have the same power as a state with 39M. (TN and CA)
Personally, I like it the way it is.

They don't have the "same power." They only have the same say in President. Why should a State with 39M have any say over the internal operations of a State with 7M people? The primary purpose of the Federal government was supposed to be defense

They only have the same say in President.
That's what I meant.
I don't think they should, I just think the way it is now works the best.

 

[TNHarley]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!

Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I didn't say how we get there, only the way I think it should work. I mean duh

You are entitled to your opinion. That and $5 will get you a cup at Starbucks.

Yes, God forbid we discuss things here. Its not like it was the point or anything.

 

[kaz]

I disagree. I don't think the Electoral College needs fixing because it's not broken. This year's election is an example of exactly why it was instituted over a popular vote.

There are a couple of things that we should look at. First, states should adopt a system of apportioning electors based on their popular vote. There is no reason California's 55 electoral votes should've all gone to Hillary Clinton. A portion should have gone to Trump, indicative of those who voted for Trump.

Second, and probably more important, is that we need to repeal the 17th Amendment making the Senate elected by popular vote instead of state legislatures. The Senate was established to represent State interests, not the popular majority. That was represented by the House of Representatives and when we abandoned this, we essentially made the Senate a redundant body that no longer served it's intended purpose. Since that time, the States have increasingly lost all power on a federal level and their interests are no longer represented in Congress. As a result, we now have nitwits who seek to wipe out their relevance altogether by eliminating the Electoral College.

I totally agree on appealing the 17th amendment. That one was worse than the Income tax, and for the reason you said. Power divided is power checked. Senators should be responsible to State legislatures. Eliminating that check and balance is one of the greatest mistakes we ever made. As for you wanting to move towards the PV, again, I totally disagree with your view California should have a disproportional say in how other States operate

 

[TooTall]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!

Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I didn't say how we get there, only the way I think it should work. I mean duh

You are entitled to your opinion. That and $5 will get you a cup at Starbucks.

Yes, God forbid we discuss things here. Its not like it was the point or anything.

This has been discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed and..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................discussed.

 

[TNHarley]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!

Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I didn't say how we get there, only the way I think it should work. I mean duh

You are entitled to your opinion. That and $5 will get you a cup at Starbucks.

Yes, God forbid we discuss things here. Its not like it was the point or anything.

This has been discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed and..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................discussed.

I have never heard this discussed and glad he brought it to the table.

 

[jillian]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

that doesn't "fix" the electoral college, dum dum. the votes of someone in north Dakota shouldn't be worth more than the vote of someone from new York.

or does the concept of one person, one vote confuse you?

 

[Auld Phart]

While I can somewhat agree, I don't see how a state with 7M people should have the same power as a state with 39M. (TN and CA)
Personally, I like it the way it is.

How about 2 votes per state?

Like Congress.

 

[TemplarKormac]

States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.

In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.

In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote

How about this:

Eliminate the electoral college altogether. Who ever wins the majority of the states via popular vote (in each individual state) wins the election. If both candidates win 25 states each, then we could use the standard already in place. Let congress be the tiebreaker.

 

[TNHarley]

While I can somewhat agree, I don't see how a state with 7M people should have the same power as a state with 39M. (TN and CA)
Personally, I like it the way it is.

How about 2 votes per state?

Like Congress.

Ahhhhh touché my friend. touché.