Electoral College. Just why?

[candycorn]

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

Uh huh, the 2000 Presidential election sure showed us that.

Four times in history, presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. So what? Given that we have had 60 presidential elections, that seems like a pretty good batting average - sure beats the hell out of area voting.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.

That would be the most democratic way to do it.

 

[candycorn]

The electoral college consists of representatives from each state. The number of representatives is determined by adding the number of senators (two) and the number of representatives in the House (determined by population). This structure ensures equal representation for each voter.

It does not. It provides unequal representation for voters.

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The electoral college consists of representatives from each state. The number of representatives is determined by adding the number of senators (two) and the number of representatives in the House (determined by population). This structure ensures equal representation for each voter.

It does not. It provides unequal representation for voters.

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

It has 61 times the population.

 

[cnm]

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

I'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.

 

[cnm]

First past the post (winner take all) sucks, it allows the system to be captured more easily by politicians as third parties are not really viable.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

I'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

 

[Statistikhengst]

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

I'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

And that is somehow supposed to mean that their vote is supposed to count for more than the vote of a Californian?

What kind of fucked up logic is that?

 

[candycorn]

First past the post (winner take all) sucks, it allows the system to be captured more easily by politicians as third parties are not really viable.

Its a moot point since the EC isn't going anywhere but if you give up the Winner Take All mandate, why would it behoove a candidate to advertise in a place like Iowa? You run an ad in Iowa and get 100% of the vote or 3 million votes. The same ad in North New Jersey/New York City may get you only 20% of the vote but that would be more than 3 million.

It seems as though the loss of WTA would steer dollars out of rural America

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

I'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

And that is somehow supposed to mean that their vote is supposed to count for more than the vote of a Californian?

What kind of fucked up logic is that?

Damn my jaw just dropped to the floor, you never understood it? You have been indoctrinated well not to comprehend something people over 200 years ago knew so well.

 

[cnm]

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

They put their trousers on three legs at a time?

 

[cnm]

It seems as though the loss of WTA would steer dollars out of rural America

Well of course campaign dollars are the most important thing about elections.

I bet you have a good laugh at those who think elections are about determining policy direction.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

They put their trousers on three legs at a time?

knowledge and wisdom are not the same.
Know the difference.

 

[candycorn]

It seems as though the loss of WTA would steer dollars out of rural America

Well of course campaign dollars are the most important thing about elections.

I bet you have a good laugh at those who think elections are about determining policy direction.

Poor choice of words on my part.
Elections are not about competing answers to the same question; they are about the questions getting asked themselves. That is simply the truth in the current polticial system. If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.

What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.

 

[cnm]

You run an ad in Iowa and get 100% of the vote or 3 million votes.

Safe seats or states will always be ignored by both sides in a two party system. Proportional representation lets more extreme right or left wing parties nibble at previously safe states. People can vote for them knowing their vote won't be immediately meaningless.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

I'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

And that is somehow supposed to mean that their vote is supposed to count for more than the vote of a Californian?

What kind of fucked up logic is that?

Damn my jaw just dropped to the floor, you never understood it? You have been indoctrinated well not to comprehend something people over 200 years ago knew so well.

Oh, I understand it perfectly. The EC was partially created to insulate against the "tyranny of the majority", but at that time, the largest state, Virginia, was only 12.6 times larger in population than the smallest state, Delaware, and not 61 times larger.

Try again, and this time, do it with talent.

 

[cnm]

If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.

What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.

We had a winner take all system. It was so rigid that a third party got 20% of the national vote and did not win a single seat. The thing about proportional representation is that sectors can be represented more easily.

To take your example, with proportional representation a national Rural Party could get rural votes over the entire country and become a player, where its constituents could before be safely ignored.

 

[candycorn]

You run an ad in Iowa and get 100% of the vote or 3 million votes.

Safe seats or states will always be ignored by both sides in a two party system. Proportional representation lets more extreme right or left wing parties nibble at previously safe states. People can vote for them knowing their vote won't be immediately meaningless.

What the direct election via popular vote would do is put every square inch of the country in play. If the governor of IA gets 60% of the vote, that means that 40% is ripe for the picking.

Probably another reason the political parties are dubious of the benefit of direct election.

 

[cnm]

Well, too much democracy was considered dangerous by the framers.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're right, California should have 54 times the electoral votes that Wyoming has since it has 54 times the population. Right?

I'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

And that is somehow supposed to mean that their vote is supposed to count for more than the vote of a Californian?

What kind of fucked up logic is that?

Damn my jaw just dropped to the floor, you never understood it? You have been indoctrinated well not to comprehend something people over 200 years ago knew so well.

Oh, I understand it perfectly. The EC was partially created to insulate against the "tyranny of the majority", but at that time, the largest state, Virginia, was only 12.6 times larger in population than the smallest state, Delaware, and not 61 times larger.

Try again, and this time, do it with talent.

You are trying to understand it, I will give you a "C" for effort

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's not that complicated to understand, why it is set up the way it is, pure genius