Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The system was set you long ago with the states were very isolated from each other.
Today with modern travel they are merely hours apart by plane.
They are much more interdependnet than they were in the day.
Giving people in Wyoming same power in the senate as California is just absurd
The Electoral College has long outlived it's usefulness. One of the main reasons the EC was formed was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted when Electoral College votes were apportioned. (at 3/5ths of course)
Another reason for the EC was our means of communication and "getting the word out". 200 years ago there was no internet or television and the FF were concerned that "the folks" wouldn't know enough about the candidates.
The EC has lost all relevance.
Stop disenfranchising voters and end the EC...
Ame®icano;4042547 said:Ame®icano;4042414 said:Senators have the same power, since they represent states.
Congressman represent people of their district, there fore states with more people/districts have more representatives in the US Congress.
Checks and balances.
So if NY were to divide into 20 states, and thus go from 2 Senators to 40, that would be 'fair' because 'states' were being represented, not 'the people'?
That's hilarious.
It is, actually. If voters of New York are willing to do so, and if all those "new states" are recognized by the 2/3 of the Congress, it's unlikely but possible.
The Electoral College has long outlived it's usefulness. One of the main reasons the EC was formed was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted when Electoral College votes were apportioned. (at 3/5ths of course)
Another reason for the EC was our means of communication and "getting the word out". 200 years ago there was no internet or television and the FF were concerned that "the folks" wouldn't know enough about the candidates.
The EC has lost all relevance.
Stop disenfranchising voters and end the EC...
keep the EC and bring back slavery
So what's the problem with getting rid of it?
You guys constantly say that the Majority are with you. Yet you consistently move to block votes and keep antiquated counting systems in place...for what exactly?
41% of the people in this country that can vote, do.
That something you guys support?
The problem is it would skew presidential elections to favor one consituency, urban voters. I AM an urban voter, and I can see the unfairness of this. With the EC you have the states deciding who is president, using a majority vote in each state. At least then the smaller states have even a chance at a say in who gets into the presidency.
With a majority vote that influence goes away, and destroys the federal nature of the system.
Which would be what? A bad thing?
The Senate provides a stop gap on "Majority Tyranny" (What ever the fuck that is), and what we have now is a country skewed toward the minority. So much so..it's created a de facto dysfunctional government. That's nuts.
Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.
It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.
California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.
Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?
The system was set you long ago with the states were very isolated from each other.
Today with modern travel they are merely hours apart by plane.
They are much more interdependnet than they were in the day.
Giving people in Wyoming same power in the senate as California is just absurd
The Electoral College has long outlived it's usefulness. One of the main reasons the EC was formed was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted when Electoral College votes were apportioned. (at 3/5ths of course)
Another reason for the EC was our means of communication and "getting the word out". 200 years ago there was no internet or television and the FF were concerned that "the folks" wouldn't know enough about the candidates.
The EC has lost all relevance.
Stop disenfranchising voters and end the EC...
keep the EC and bring back slavery
Only this time..Emus would become the slaves (well food) of wolves.
The system was set you long ago with the states were very isolated from each other.
Today with modern travel they are merely hours apart by plane.
They are much more interdependnet than they were in the day.
Giving people in Wyoming same power in the senate as California is just absurd
Ame®icano;4042547 said:So if NY were to divide into 20 states, and thus go from 2 Senators to 40, that would be 'fair' because 'states' were being represented, not 'the people'?
That's hilarious.
It is, actually. If voters of New York are willing to do so, and if all those "new states" are recognized by the 2/3 of the Congress, it's unlikely but possible.
And the big low population states would object the loudest, claiming it wouldn't be 'fair'.
The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.
Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?
Why does it have to be "fair"? The system was set up this way and it works. Just because it makes it harder for you to promote your political agenda does not make it "unfair".
Fairness is an arbitrary concept anyway, usually brought up by those who want something made easier for themselves.
There's no such thing as fairness?? That's quite a concept.
keep the EC and bring back slavery
Only this time..Emus would become the slaves (well food) of wolves.
gotta catch one first...
The system was set you long ago with the states were very isolated from each other.
Today with modern travel they are merely hours apart by plane.
They are much more interdependnet than they were in the day.
Giving people in Wyoming same power in the senate as California is just absurd
Holy @%$ing @#%^$ @#%@#$ing @^$#^ @#$ks!!! Seriously? Have you EVER read ANYTHING? That is not the point. You float these stupid "facts" out there like you've actually read anything. What would be the reason for the smaller states staying if they did not have an equal voice in one of the houses of congress? The people are represented numerically in the HoR and the STATES are represented in the SENATE. Do you get that? The STATES ratified the Constitution, NOT the people.
Mik
The Senate gives equal voice to a state of under a million people compared to a state of 20 million or more.
Why should one guy in the Senate have 20 times the power of another? Where is the fairness in that?
Why does it have to be "fair"? The system was set up this way and it works. Just because it makes it harder for you to promote your political agenda does not make it "unfair".
Fairness is an arbitrary concept anyway, usually brought up by those who want something made easier for themselves.
Well if fairness is meaningless, why'd we bother to give women the vote? The system was working fine without them for 150 years...
Why does it have to be "fair"? The system was set up this way and it works. Just because it makes it harder for you to promote your political agenda does not make it "unfair".
Fairness is an arbitrary concept anyway, usually brought up by those who want something made easier for themselves.
There's no such thing as fairness?? That's quite a concept.
Fairness is nothing BUT a concept, completely arbitrary, and subject to change based on the views of those calling for "fairness" Its a weasel word, nothing more, usually used by someone seeking an advantage, not a levelling, of a position.
There's no such thing as fairness?? That's quite a concept.
Fairness is nothing BUT a concept, completely arbitrary, and subject to change based on the views of those calling for "fairness" Its a weasel word, nothing more, usually used by someone seeking an advantage, not a levelling, of a position.
Once again.
Conservatives are constantly pointing out they have a "Majority" of Americans on their side.
So when you speak of "Majority" exactly what are you talking about.
A majority of people in general? Or a majority of people that think like you guys do.
The system was set you long ago with the states were very isolated from each other.
Today with modern travel they are merely hours apart by plane.
They are much more interdependnet than they were in the day.
Giving people in Wyoming same power in the senate as California is just absurd
Holy @%$ing @#%^$ @#%@#$ing @^$#^ @#$ks!!! Seriously? Have you EVER read ANYTHING? That is not the point. You float these stupid "facts" out there like you've actually read anything. What would be the reason for the smaller states staying if they did not have an equal voice in one of the houses of congress? The people are represented numerically in the HoR and the STATES are represented in the SENATE. Do you get that? The STATES ratified the Constitution, NOT the people.
Mik
Ah.
Can we meet one of these "States". What do they look like?
Got a description?
Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.
It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.
California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.
Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?
No it doesn't. The popular vote winner wins almost every time anyway. When has the electoral college really helped the smaller states?
Name all the elections where that happened.
Every election.
The winner of the electoral college has the broadest base of support nationwide.
look at the facts...the 2004 election as an example because it is clear cut.
Bush only had 3 million more votes than Kerry...a 2.5% difference.
BUT...Bush received 286 Electoral Votes compared to Kerry's 251.
Look at the map...Bush had the much wider base of support nationwide.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now let's look at an election where the winner of the electoral college is not the winner of the popular vote...the 2000 election.
Al Gore won the popular vote by 450,000 votes over Bush...a difference of .5%.
But Bush had a significantly wider base of support.
Bush won 30 states, Gore 20 + DC.
Look at the map:
.
.
.
.
..
.
And there you have it.
That is how the electoral college protects the smaller less populated states from being overwhelmed by the larger more populated states in the Federal system.
Checks and balances.
Really? Looks to me, in that second map, like Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine all got overwhelmed
by the electoral college trumping the popular vote.
Why does it have to be "fair"? The system was set up this way and it works. Just because it makes it harder for you to promote your political agenda does not make it "unfair".
Fairness is an arbitrary concept anyway, usually brought up by those who want something made easier for themselves.
Well if fairness is meaningless, why'd we bother to give women the vote? The system was working fine without them for 150 years...
It was due to changing morals of the time. I would say it was more the "right" thing to do than the "fair" thing to do. Same with enforcement of the Reconstruction amendments during the 60's and the revocation of plessy v. furgeson.
I am not against the concept of fairness, just the use of the word when what you really mean is "screw over people I disagree with while tipping the scales towards people like me", which is what removing the EC would do.
