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

[xyz]

How about every big city gets one vote, and every small city or town gets zero?

 

[Boss]

You look at this country and States have been completely undermined of their intended power. You correctly pointed that out with Senators. Since we were supposed to be a collection of States with a think Federal layer, primarily to defend us from foreign threats, why should California have more power over smaller States since they weren't intended to have any power over smaller States?

Well, because California has a lot more people than Wyoming. The EC takes this into consideration basing it's calculation on both the Senate and House representations. So the state AND people are represented in the EC. Your idea takes power from the people and gives it solely to the state. I just disagree with this idea. Why should a liberal state like Rhode Island have equal voting power of a conservative state like Texas?

 

[Auld Phart]

How about every big city gets one vote, and every small city or town gets zero?

 

[kaz]

You look at this country and States have been completely undermined of their intended power. You correctly pointed that out with Senators. Since we were supposed to be a collection of States with a think Federal layer, primarily to defend us from foreign threats, why should California have more power over smaller States since they weren't intended to have any power over smaller States?

Well, because California has a lot more people than Wyoming. The EC takes this into consideration basing it's calculation on both the Senate and House representations. So the state AND people are represented in the EC. Your idea takes power from the people and gives it solely to the state. I just disagree with this idea. Why should a liberal state like Rhode Island have equal voting power of a conservative state like Texas?

Give me an example of these powers you think Californians should have at the Federal level besides defense (I already stipulated to) over Wyominites. Californians should have no say over Wyomingites and visa versa

 

[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 wins the election. If both candidates win 25 states each, then we could use the standard already in place. Let congress be the tiebreaker.

Fuuuuuuuuuck a popular vote.

You misunderstand me.

Each state holds a popular vote.

 

[Boss]

You look at this country and States have been completely undermined of their intended power. You correctly pointed that out with Senators. Since we were supposed to be a collection of States with a think Federal layer, primarily to defend us from foreign threats, why should California have more power over smaller States since they weren't intended to have any power over smaller States?

Well, because California has a lot more people than Wyoming. The EC takes this into consideration basing it's calculation on both the Senate and House representations. So the state AND people are represented in the EC. Your idea takes power from the people and gives it solely to the state. I just disagree with this idea. Why should a liberal state like Rhode Island have equal voting power of a conservative state like Texas?

Give me an example of these powers you think Californians should have at the Federal level besides defense (I already stipulated to) over Wyominites. Californians should have no say over Wyomingites and visa versa

Well no one is saying anything about one state having a say over other states. The Federal government represents all the states and all the people. Not JUST the states and not JUST the people. "Popular National Vote" is representing JUST the people. "One State-One Vote" is representing JUST the state. What we currently have is representing BOTH... as is should be.

 

[kaz]

You look at this country and States have been completely undermined of their intended power. You correctly pointed that out with Senators. Since we were supposed to be a collection of States with a think Federal layer, primarily to defend us from foreign threats, why should California have more power over smaller States since they weren't intended to have any power over smaller States?

Well, because California has a lot more people than Wyoming. The EC takes this into consideration basing it's calculation on both the Senate and House representations. So the state AND people are represented in the EC. Your idea takes power from the people and gives it solely to the state. I just disagree with this idea. Why should a liberal state like Rhode Island have equal voting power of a conservative state like Texas?

Give me an example of these powers you think Californians should have at the Federal level besides defense (I already stipulated to) over Wyominites. Californians should have no say over Wyomingites and visa versa

Well no one is saying anything about one state having a say over other states. The Federal government represents all the states and all the people. Not JUST the states and not JUST the people. "Popular National Vote" is representing JUST the people. "One State-One Vote" is representing JUST the state. What we currently have is representing BOTH... as is should be.

According to the Constitution, we are not one people. Meaning we aren't for the most part subject to the same laws. States are the primary government and we were supposed to have huge levels of autonomy. Look up what "Federal" actually means. So I was impressed at your picking the 17th amendment, you were dead on. Now you don't seem to have meant it. Why don't you support the popular vote?

Seriously, you keep going back and forth every argument, I have no idea what you are saying. You keep saying you support State rights, then when I say great, you say you don't support State rights

 

[my2¢]

I'll go for it if Arizona's 1 vote belongs to me.

 

[Freewill]

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

One state is not suppose to have a say in the internal working of another state. But the SCOTUS let that horse out of the barn a long time ago. I don't think we could ever go back to state's rights.

 

[Fang]

The electoral college is a great system. Well, until you lose. Then you think it sucks - only if you're a liberal of course.

 

[rightwinger]

Why not just one man one vote regardless of which state you are in

 

[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

One state is not suppose to have a say in the internal working of another state. But the SCOTUS let that horse out of the barn a long time ago. I don't think we could ever go back to state's rights.

I thought Obamacare would never go away either.

As you accurately point out, the idea of separate but co-equal branches of the Federal government checking each other was a shit stupid idea with no chance of working. The problem was that growing Federal power grew all their power, so it didn't work.

What we need to do is have the States check Federal power. For example, the States should have power over Constitutionality, not the SCOTUS. The States should also have to validate Federal laws, particularly any with direct or indirect taxes. So for example a tax hike would need to be approved by 2/3 of the legislatures and non-revenue laws by 1/2 + 1. That sort of thing.

Going towards popular vote is the completely wrong thing to do and if we are going to do that, we should just scrap the COTUS completely as it is at that point bastardized into something it fundamentally isn't

 

[longknife]

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

Typical Libturd stupidity, The electoral college is designed to give control of presidential elections TO THE PEOPLE where it belongs.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If every state had one vote, Trump would be president.

 

[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

Typical Libturd stupidity, The electoral college is designed to give control of presidential elections TO THE PEOPLE where it belongs.

You think I'm a liberal? Seriously?

And I don't know if you read it or not, it seems not, but I went the opposite direction of PV, not towards it

 

[Freewill]

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

One state is not suppose to have a say in the internal working of another state. But the SCOTUS let that horse out of the barn a long time ago. I don't think we could ever go back to state's rights.

I thought Obamacare would never go away either.

As you accurately point out, the idea of separate but co-equal branches of the Federal government checking each other was a shit stupid idea with no chance of working. The problem was that growing Federal power grew all their power, so it didn't work.

What we need to do is have the States check Federal power. For example, the States should have power over Constitutionality, not the SCOTUS. The States should also have to validate Federal laws, particularly any with direct or indirect taxes. So for example a tax hike would need to be approved by 2/3 of the legislatures and non-revenue laws by 1/2 + 1. That sort of thing.

Going towards popular vote is the completely wrong thing to do and if we are going to do that, we should just scrap the COTUS completely as it is at that point bastardized into something it fundamentally isn't

Agreed, democracy is mob rule, I don't think either side of the aisle really wants mob rule.

Here are the powers enumerated in the COTUS, everything else is suppose to be up to the states.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;



To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;



To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;



To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;



To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;



To establish post offices and post roads;



To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;



To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;



To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;



To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;



To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;



To provide and maintain a navy;



To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;



To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;



To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And



To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



Amendment X



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[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

One state is not suppose to have a say in the internal working of another state. But the SCOTUS let that horse out of the barn a long time ago. I don't think we could ever go back to state's rights.

I thought Obamacare would never go away either.

As you accurately point out, the idea of separate but co-equal branches of the Federal government checking each other was a shit stupid idea with no chance of working. The problem was that growing Federal power grew all their power, so it didn't work.

What we need to do is have the States check Federal power. For example, the States should have power over Constitutionality, not the SCOTUS. The States should also have to validate Federal laws, particularly any with direct or indirect taxes. So for example a tax hike would need to be approved by 2/3 of the legislatures and non-revenue laws by 1/2 + 1. That sort of thing.

Going towards popular vote is the completely wrong thing to do and if we are going to do that, we should just scrap the COTUS completely as it is at that point bastardized into something it fundamentally isn't

Agreed, democracy is mob rule, I don't either side of the aisle really wants mob rule.

Here are the powers enumerated in the COTUS, everything else is suppose to be up to the states.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;



To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;



To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;



To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;



To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;



To establish post offices and post roads;



To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;



To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;



To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;



To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;



To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;



To provide and maintain a navy;



To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;



To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;



To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And



To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



Amendment X



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yep, and none of those involve that California should have more say over other States as States joined the union. Why should the UN not have bigger countries have more say?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

You're truly are clueless

 

[CowboyTed]

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

So 70 million can tell the rest how to live... I pretty sure the somewhere it said all men are created equal and you just throwing all that in the bin...

 

[CowboyTed]

Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.

Lakhota,

I agree with Popular vote but how about using the Alternative vote system...



This type of voting systems are the most popular and better than run off election system... Bu the big thing for everyone is that you would get about 6 candidates for election(this is normally the rate in other countries).

It offers alternative views and drastically reduces negative politics... I explain again why sometime...