Repeal the 22nd Amendment and the 17th, too.

[postman]

14th not the 22nd

Backagain can't count.

 

[Lesh]

They don't, that the point. New York gets 28, Nebraska gets 5, but at least rural states like Nebraska have a say, and that's where the power of the EC comes into play. It takes people from various states and allows them to participate in the process and everyone gets some input.

If we did popular vote only, thr major cities in just a couple of states would always decide the election, and we would have a permanent democratic presidency that only represents one half of the country in a few major Metropolitan areas.

Nonsense. Add Nebraska and five other similar states and you still have far fewer people lording it over NY.

And you seem to want that

 

[ThisIsMe]

Instead, right now we have 5-7 swing states, that get 90% of a candidates attention, while virtually ignoring the needs of the rest of the country.

Sure but at least every state has SOME pull. What you all are suggesting is 90% of the rest of the country would have none

 

[ThisIsMe]

Only if you assume that the people in Dallas and Houston, would vote the same way as the people in New York and Chicago.

But L.A. doesn't vote like Fort Worth.

But the people in Houston, and Austin and San Antonio DO vote like LA. They are typically blue cities.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nonsense. Add Nebraska and five other similar states and you still have far fewer people lording or over NY.

And you seem to want that

OK, were going to add states, then we can add California to the mix, now you have many more electoral votes than those 5 small states, but at the end of the day, each state has a say.

if republican held the popular vote all the time, would we even be talking about this?

 

[Coyote]

It works for the Senate, and it's designed so big cities can't run roughshod over the whole State.

In other words you want low population rural areas to run roughshod over high population urban areas.

So much for the “will of the people” eh?

 

[martybegan]

In other words you want low population rural areas to run roughshod over high population urban areas.

So much for the “will of the people” eh?

Those urban populations can cast laws in their own cities that they want.

Why should they be able to impose things on the entire State unless they are popular with the rest of the State?

So you want to get rid of the Senate as well?

 

[postman]

Nonsense. Add Nebraska and five other similar states and you still have far fewer people lording or over NY.

And you seem to want that

Right now you have 5-7 states that chose the president. The swing states. The red and blue states no longer determine who wins.

 

[postman]

Sure but at least every state has SOME pull. What you all are suggesting is 90% of the rest of the country would have none

I'm saying currently 10% of the states, determine who is president. The red and blue states no longer determine who wins.

 

[rightwinger]

Those urban populations can cast laws in their own cities that they want.

Why should they be able to impose things on the entire State unless they are popular with the rest of the State?

So you want to get rid of the Senate as well?

Because every vote in a state should count the same.

Why should the needs of population centers be ignored to pander to the needs of rural areas?

 

[martybegan]

I'm saying currently 10% of the states, determine who is president. The red and blue states no longer determine who wins.

The question is if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

I would go with an Electoral College where each state gives 2 EV's to the overall State winner, and the rest are divided up by congressional district.

 

[Coyote]

Those urban populations can cast laws in their own cities that they want.

Why should they be able to impose things on the entire State unless they are popular with the rest of the State?

So you want to get rid of the Senate as well?

Except….

The rural can cast laws over the urban cities.

I honestly don’t know what the solution is but it has become way unbalanced as we’ve moved from fear of “tyranny of the majority” to an actual tyranny of tbe minority and this is showing up as a number of laws that are not supported by the majority who are affected.

 

[martybegan]

Because every vote in a state should count the same.

Why should the needs of population centers be ignored to pander to the needs of rural areas?

The urban centers can pass their own local laws.

Why should rural areas be beholden to urban ones?

 

[postman]

OK, were going to add states, then we can add California to the mix, now you have many more electoral votes than those 5 small states, but at the end of the day, each state has a say.

Actually, solidly red states and solidly blue states no longer have a say in who is president.
It's now decided by the swing states. Which are only 10% of the states, and less than 2% of the population.

 

[martybegan]

Except….

The rural can cast laws over the urban cities.

I honestly don’t know what the solution is but it has become way unbalanced we’ve moved from fear of “tyranny of the majority” to an actual tyranny of tbe minority and this is showing up as a number of laws that are not supported by the majority who are affected.

Actually they couldn't. In bicameral legislatures the lower house is still based on population. Changing the 14th or adding an amendment to allow geographical upper houses would bring the balance back.

 

[rightwinger]

The urban centers can pass their own local laws.

Why should rural areas be beholden to urban ones?

So can rural areas

Urban centers are paying the most taxes which get siphoned to support rural needs

 

[martybegan]

So can rural areas

Urban centers are paying the most taxes which get siphoned to support rural needs

No, they can't because laws passed at the State level overrule laws at the local level.

And those rural areas provide food so the urban areas don't fucking starve.

 

[hadit]

Just get rid of the Constitution at this point since Trump refuses to abide by it.

Evidence? And I don't mean feelz.

 

[hadit]

No, they can't because laws passed at the State level overrule laws at the local level.

And those rural areas provide food so the urban areas don't fucking starve.

They don't seem to understand symbiotic relationships.

 

[postman]

Those urban populations can cast laws in their own cities that they want.

Why should they be able to impose things on the entire State unless they are popular with the rest of the State?

So you want to get rid of the Senate as well?

They can cast their own ordinances, but laws are the purview of states and nations.