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

[rightwinger]

How many electoral votes does Russia get?

Enough to overcome a Democratic majority





.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

"...was supposed to be..." Says who?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

One more harebrained RWnut scheme to create a conservative oligarchy.

 

[12icer]

It is NOT going to be changed and Trump IS NOT going to be impeached. There will not be another democrat elected till the REAL DEMOCRATS EXPELL THE LIBERAL SHITSCUM from the party.

 

[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

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...

Read my posts you fucking retard because that has nothing to do with anything I said. You're the one who wants to tell people how to live their lives, I want no one to do that

 

[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...

Read my posts you fucking retard because that has nothing to do with anything I said. You're the one who wants to tell people how to live their lives, I want no one to do that

It is pretty obvious you want less democracy... You want less people picking the leader of the US.

This is just a power grab... You are trying to say a US Citizen one state should have a less of a say that someone in another state...

How about California splits into 50 individual states...

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

We need the vote to be more representative of the population.

This idea does the opposite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They had a one state one vote component as part of the Articles of Confederation. The founders got rid of that when they wrote the Constitution,

so obviously, among the various comical elements of the OP's ignorance, he doesn't know history.

 

[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.

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

Well, I have explained it several times now and you don't seem to be comprehending what I am saying for some odd reason. I'll give it one more shot...

I do favor state's rights. I don't favor exclusively state's rights. Our founders set up a brilliant system where both the state and the people are represented. That's the system I favor because I believe it's genius. It allows both the state and the people to have a voice and express their interests. I don't want to exclude the states and I don't want to exclude the people.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

False. It was specifically designed to give more representation to voters in states with low population.

A voter in Wyoming has much more influence than a voter in California or Texas, for example.

So, what should we think about your ad hom now?

 

[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

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...

Read my posts you fucking retard because that has nothing to do with anything I said. You're the one who wants to tell people how to live their lives, I want no one to do that

It is pretty obvious you want less democracy... You want less people picking the leader of the US.

This is just a power grab... You are trying to say a US Citizen one state should have a less of a say that someone in another state...

How about California splits into 50 individual states...

You really don't understand the discussion at all. Government schools have failed you, my friend. The sad thing is you want to do the same thing to your children as was done to you

 

[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

Well, I have explained it several times now and you don't seem to be comprehending what I am saying for some odd reason. I'll give it one more shot...

I do favor state's rights. I don't favor exclusively state's rights. Our founders set up a brilliant system where both the state and the people are represented. That's the system I favor because I believe it's genius. It allows both the state and the people to have a voice and express their interests. I don't want to exclude the states and I don't want to exclude the people.

Here's what your missing in that statement. Federal and State rights are mutually exclusive.

The Federal government has specific, enumerated powers. None of those powers include their pitting your interests against someone in another State. They are powers that were ceded by the States to the federal government. Primarily the mutual defense. There is no legitimate Federal power that allows the Federal government to control individual citizens of this country with the exception of traveling or trading across State or international borders.

All other powers are reserved to the States or the people. So when you keep talking about your vote versus someone in California (assuming you don't live in California), I don't really know what you are talking about. How are your interests different that you should have a different say? Now at the State level, that's completely different because States do have the legitimate power to affect your daily life

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

False. It was specifically designed to give more representation to voters in states with low population.

A voter in Wyoming has much more influence than a voter in California or Texas, for example.

So, what should we think about your ad hom now?

The only influence a voter in Wyoming has, is in Wyoming.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Yes, it worked perfectly.

 

[Boss]

Here's what your missing in that statement. Federal and State rights are mutually exclusive.

The Federal government has specific, enumerated powers. None of those powers include their pitting your interests against someone in another State. They are powers that were ceded by the States to the federal government. Primarily the mutual defense. There is no legitimate Federal power that allows the Federal government to control individual citizens of this country with the exception of traveling or trading across State or international borders.

All other powers are reserved to the States or the people. So when you keep talking about your vote versus someone in California (assuming you don't live in California), I don't really know what you are talking about. How are your interests different that you should have a different say? Now at the State level, that's completely different because States do have the legitimate power to affect your daily life

All other powers are reserved to the States or the people.
Sorry, this is incorrect. The Constitution says "to the states and people respectively." Not "states OR the people."

Your 'one state-one vote' scheme disregards the people altogether and gives ALL power to the state alone. The state and all it's people simply have one vote. I disagree with that unless we're talking about ratification of a Constitutional amendment, in which case, you also need 2/3 of the states.

I fundamentally disagree with giving states supreme power in the federal government over the people. That's not what our founders established or how they wanted the system to work. They took great efforts in establishing both a house and senate. Why? Wasn't it because they wanted BOTH the people AND states to be represented?

 

[kaz]

Here's what your missing in that statement. Federal and State rights are mutually exclusive.

The Federal government has specific, enumerated powers. None of those powers include their pitting your interests against someone in another State. They are powers that were ceded by the States to the federal government. Primarily the mutual defense. There is no legitimate Federal power that allows the Federal government to control individual citizens of this country with the exception of traveling or trading across State or international borders.

All other powers are reserved to the States or the people. So when you keep talking about your vote versus someone in California (assuming you don't live in California), I don't really know what you are talking about. How are your interests different that you should have a different say? Now at the State level, that's completely different because States do have the legitimate power to affect your daily life

All other powers are reserved to the States or the people.
Sorry, this is incorrect. The Constitution says "to the states and people respectively." Not "states OR the people."

Your 'one state-one vote' scheme disregards the people altogether and gives ALL power to the state alone. The state and all it's people simply have one vote. I disagree with that unless we're talking about ratification of a Constitutional amendment, in which case, you also need 2/3 of the states.

I fundamentally disagree with giving states supreme power in the federal government over the people. That's not what our founders established or how they wanted the system to work. They took great efforts in establishing both a house and senate. Why? Wasn't it because they wanted BOTH the people AND states to be represented?

You made some good points in the discussion, now you're just babbling and I don't know what you're talking about

 

[Boss]

You made some good points in the discussion, now you're just babbling and I don't know what you're talking about

Sorry you think it's babbling to counter your argument. I don't know know what I can do about that. You and I agree that states should have rights pursuant to the 10th Amendment, but you go a bridge too far in thinking the states deserve supreme rights. I don't agree with that. While it's true they don't currently have the rights they deserve, that is not to argue we need to bestow rights they never were intended to have. Our framers set up a system where both the people AND the states had exclusive and inalienable rights over the federal government, which were given enumerated powers.

Okay, for the sake of argument... I don't agree with you and I don't think this will ever happen... BUT... let's say we lose our collective minds and somehow you talk us into this "One State = One Vote" idea you have..... it's 20-30 years down the road... California gets into financial trouble and can no longer sustain it's debt... the people of the state decide they need to divide the state up into three states instead of one, in order to better manage their massive debt. Now California becomes North California, South Cali and Central Cali... three states instead of one. Do they get THREE votes now? How are you going to deal with that? You may say, well no... California... you can't divide yourself into three states, we won't allow that! Okay, so they are forced to go bankrupt and dissolve their state charter.... California then becomes part of Oregon and Nevada. So now, Oregon and Nevada have all these millions of former Californians they represent but they still only have their one vote each? What if the people of Pennsylvania decide they don't like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia always determining the fate of their one vote and decide to form their own state independent of those two cities? You won't allow it? What if they tell you to go read the 10th Amendment and stuff it?

See, you're not really thinking about consequences here. The founders who framed the Constitution THOUGHT of all of these things. They deliberated on this for YEARS before reaching agreement on the system we have. They didn't just have one too many glasses of wine one night and get bored and type out some cockamamie idea.

 

[kaz]

You made some good points in the discussion, now you're just babbling and I don't know what you're talking about

Sorry you think it's babbling to counter your argument. I don't know know what I can do about that. You and I agree that states should have rights pursuant to the 10th Amendment, but you go a bridge too far in thinking the states deserve supreme rights. I don't agree with that. While it's true they don't currently have the rights they deserve, that is not to argue we need to bestow rights they never were intended to have. Our framers set up a system where both the people AND the states had exclusive and inalienable rights over the federal government, which were given enumerated powers.

Okay, for the sake of argument... I don't agree with you and I don't think this will ever happen... BUT... let's say we lose our collective minds and somehow you talk us into this "One State = One Vote" idea you have..... it's 20-30 years down the road... California gets into financial trouble and can no longer sustain it's debt... the people of the state decide they need to divide the state up into three states instead of one, in order to better manage their massive debt. Now California becomes North California, South Cali and Central Cali... three states instead of one. Do they get THREE votes now? How are you going to deal with that? You may say, well no... California... you can't divide yourself into three states, we won't allow that! Okay, so they are forced to go bankrupt and dissolve their state charter.... California then becomes part of Oregon and Nevada. So now, Oregon and Nevada have all these millions of former Californians they represent but they still only have their one vote each? What if the people of Pennsylvania decide they don't like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia always determining the fate of their one vote and decide to form their own state independent of those two cities? You won't allow it? What if they tell you to go read the 10th Amendment and stuff it?

See, you're not really thinking about consequences here. The founders who framed the Constitution THOUGHT of all of these things. They deliberated on this for YEARS before reaching agreement on the system we have. They didn't just have one too many glasses of wine one night and get bored and type out some cockamamie idea.

I stopped reading at the strawman that States should have "supreme rights." That isn't what I said. Go back and read the discussion and try it again. Or don't. But at that point there was clearly no point in continuing

 

[Boss]

I stopped reading at the strawman that States should have "supreme rights." That isn't what I said. Go back and read the discussion and try it again. Or don't. But at that point there was clearly no point in continuing

Well no wonder you just hear babbling... that explains your problem. You have to read my posts in their entirety for them to make sense. Also, you need to read the words in the order I typed them and don't skip over words. If you try that, you might have a better understanding... just saying.

You ARE saying states should have supremacy if you're saying one vote per state. Because every state has a different population. If all states had relatively the same population, your idea might be fine... but then, the EC would be equal between states as well, so it would be the same thing.

Your idea would give 38 million people in California the same voting power as 200k people in Wyoming. It would give 1 million people in Rhode Island the same voting power as 27 million people in Texas. How is that fair in your mind?