State - Electoral College

[Dogbiscuit]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

 

[Pogo]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

 

[Tom8700]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

No You are right. Actually It IS Like that all over the place. MI, WI, PA, GA are all rural states that are supressed by one or two Cities that only Take Up a tiny fraction of the state. The solution of this would be fairly easy. No Winner Takes IT all system for the entire state but Congressional Districts AS in Maine or Nevada. Keep the College AS is, but detirmine the votes by Congressional Districts. Was better.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

While I apreciate your reply, it seems that you missed the premise of my question, and that could be due to the way I asked it. Thanks anyway.

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

No You are right. Actually It IS Like that all over the place. MI, WI, PA, GA are all rural states that are supressed by one or two Cities that only Take Up a tiny fraction of the state. The solution of this would be fairly easy. No Winner Takes IT all system for the entire state but Congressional Districts AS in Maine or Nevada. Keep the College AS is, but detirmine the votes by Congressional Districts. Was better.

I will have to look at congressional districts and their effects.
Thanks

 

[Pogo]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

While I apreciate your reply, it seems that you missed the premise of my question, and that could be due to the way I asked it. Thanks anyway.

I did not "miss" the premise. I demonstrated that it doesn't exist and is therefore not a legitimate premise.
The EC was absolutely NOT created to "give rural states a voice". That was never a consideration or a thing at all. The Senate was created for that purpose.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

While I appreciate your reply, it seems that you missed the premise of my question, and that could be due to the way I asked it. Thanks anyway.

I did not "miss" the premise. I demonstrated that it doesn't exist and is therefore not a legitimate premise.
The EC was absolutely NOT created to "give rural states a voice". That was never a consideration or a thing at all. The Senate was created for that purpose.

This was the reason why I asked my question to begin with,

Small States Get Equal Voice
The Electoral College helps give rural states with lower populations an equal voice.
If the popular vote alone decided elections, the presidential candidates would rarely visit those states or consider the needs of rural residents in their policy platforms.
Due to the Electoral College process, candidates must get votes from multiple states—large and small—thus helping to ensure that the president will address the needs of the entire country.

Learn Why the Founding Fathers Created the Electoral College

Here are some reasons why the United States should retain the Electoral College system and what the founding fathers intended when they created it.

www.thoughtco.com

I was trying to explain one of the reasons they have kept it for over 200 years and why it continues to work.
Hence my original question, and thats pretty much it.
I did NOT say thats the reason that it was created, and I thought I made that clear in my first sentence.

 

[Pogo]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

While I appreciate your reply, it seems that you missed the premise of my question, and that could be due to the way I asked it. Thanks anyway.

I did not "miss" the premise. I demonstrated that it doesn't exist and is therefore not a legitimate premise.
The EC was absolutely NOT created to "give rural states a voice". That was never a consideration or a thing at all. The Senate was created for that purpose.

This was the reason why I asked my question to begin with,

Small States Get Equal Voice
The Electoral College helps give rural states with lower populations an equal voice.
If the popular vote alone decided elections, the presidential candidates would rarely visit those states or consider the needs of rural residents in their policy platforms.
Due to the Electoral College process, candidates must get votes from multiple states—large and small—thus helping to ensure that the president will address the needs of the entire country.

Learn Why the Founding Fathers Created the Electoral College

Here are some reasons why the United States should retain the Electoral College system and what the founding fathers intended when they created it.

www.thoughtco.com

I was trying to explain one of the reasons they have kept it for over 200 years and why it continues to work.
Hence my original question, and thats pretty much it.
I did NOT say thats the reason that it was created, and I thought I made that clear in my first sentence.

Roll tape.

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.

I kind of highlighted it a little bit.

It's erroneous. And it hasn't "worked" for 200 years either.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

While I appreciate your reply, it seems that you missed the premise of my question, and that could be due to the way I asked it. Thanks anyway.

I did not "miss" the premise. I demonstrated that it doesn't exist and is therefore not a legitimate premise.
The EC was absolutely NOT created to "give rural states a voice". That was never a consideration or a thing at all. The Senate was created for that purpose.

This was the reason why I asked my question to begin with,

Small States Get Equal Voice
The Electoral College helps give rural states with lower populations an equal voice.
If the popular vote alone decided elections, the presidential candidates would rarely visit those states or consider the needs of rural residents in their policy platforms.
Due to the Electoral College process, candidates must get votes from multiple states—large and small—thus helping to ensure that the president will address the needs of the entire country.

Learn Why the Founding Fathers Created the Electoral College

Here are some reasons why the United States should retain the Electoral College system and what the founding fathers intended when they created it.

www.thoughtco.com

I was trying to explain one of the reasons they have kept it for over 200 years and why it continues to work.
Hence my original question, and thats pretty much it.
I did NOT say thats the reason that it was created, and I thought I made that clear in my first sentence.

Roll tape.

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.

I kind of highlighted it a little bit.

It's erroneous. And it hasn't "worked" for 200 years either.

Maybe you need to read my first sentence again, and realize that the part you highlighted was from my second sentence, and is directly in reference to the first sentence. Meaning that "one of those reason is" that its worked for over 200 years, and what dont you understand about that ?

And further more, to your other comment.

No Bad Results
Even the harshest critics would have trouble proving that in more than 200 years of operation, the Electoral College system has produced bad results. Only twice have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision to the House of Representatives.

And who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

 

[Pogo]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

While I appreciate your reply, it seems that you missed the premise of my question, and that could be due to the way I asked it. Thanks anyway.

I did not "miss" the premise. I demonstrated that it doesn't exist and is therefore not a legitimate premise.
The EC was absolutely NOT created to "give rural states a voice". That was never a consideration or a thing at all. The Senate was created for that purpose.

This was the reason why I asked my question to begin with,

Small States Get Equal Voice
The Electoral College helps give rural states with lower populations an equal voice.
If the popular vote alone decided elections, the presidential candidates would rarely visit those states or consider the needs of rural residents in their policy platforms.
Due to the Electoral College process, candidates must get votes from multiple states—large and small—thus helping to ensure that the president will address the needs of the entire country.

Learn Why the Founding Fathers Created the Electoral College

Here are some reasons why the United States should retain the Electoral College system and what the founding fathers intended when they created it.

www.thoughtco.com

I was trying to explain one of the reasons they have kept it for over 200 years and why it continues to work.
Hence my original question, and thats pretty much it.
I did NOT say thats the reason that it was created, and I thought I made that clear in my first sentence.

Roll tape.

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.

I kind of highlighted it a little bit.

It's erroneous. And it hasn't "worked" for 200 years either.

Maybe you need to read my first sentence again, and realize that the part you highlighted was from my second sentence, and is directly in reference to the first sentence. Meaning that "one of those reason is" that its worked for over 200 years, and what dont you understand about that ?

And further more, to your other comment.

No Bad Results
Even the harshest critics would have trouble proving that in more than 200 years of operation, the Electoral College system has produced bad results. Only twice have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision to the House of Representatives.

And who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

Jeebus. Here's a wag who thinks bold font makes it truer.

Quincy Adams was "elected" via the infamous "corrupt bargain" even though candidate Andrew Jackson had more votes both in the popular vote and the electoral college. Jefferson meanwhile would have been elected in 1796 over the elder Adams, if his state had adopted the equally-infamous "winner take all" malarkey, which it subsequently did, much to the consternation of the aforementioned James Madison. And that particular me-too snowball begat the surreal world wherein, for example, Doornail Rump, who could not muster more than 44% of the vote of Utah with an R after his name, nevertheless got 100% of that states electoral vote. And the end result of that was for more examples, the elections of 1876,1888, 2000 and 2016 -- all of them after Slavery was abolished and therefore not a factor in "Slave Power" for which the EC was designed --- in which the choice of the voters was denied the office.

And when you essplain to the class how that system can be characterized as "it worked", be sure to delve into the depths of that other corrupt bargain in 1876, when they couldn't even agree on who the electors WERE.

The EC as practiced, creates artificial "red states" and "blue states" -- terms which would not exist without it and thereby divides the country; tosses most votes directly into the trash, ensures that voters IN those so-called "red" and "blue" states have no reason whatsoever to show up since the outcome is pre-decided, and thereby suppresses voter turnout; and further ensures that the entire electoral system is doomed to a Duopoly system forever.

Essplain to me how that can be described as "a system that works".

 

[Dogbiscuit]

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.
However, my question and concern is on the state level. Ive noticed that almost all the population of major cities, vote Democrat. Due to population growth and the concentration thereof, my question is, is it possible that some individual states are loosing their "rural voice" in a states representation, as this concentration continues ?
Am I reading into the process wrong, or, are some of the major cities speaking on behalf of the entire state ?
If Im off base here, what process do I need to read about next ?

Actually, "giving the rural states a voice" had nothing to do with creating the EC. That's a latter-day mythology. In fact ALL of the states were rural when the country and its EC began. People lived on farms, not in cities.

What the EC actually was designed for was:

(a) to appease the slaveholding states so that they would join the union (the new country) with the assurance that they could count their captive human labor as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress (while affording those captive laborers 0/5 of a vote). This of course gave them disproportional power (ever wonder back in grammar school why four of our first five POTUSes (six of the first ten, seven of the first 12) were all from Virginia? There you jolly well are, aren't you).

(b) to put in play an élite elector system who would know more about who was who than the common citizen (who often didn't have a vote anyway especially if suffering from afflictions like not being male or not owning land), since said citizen in, say, Georgia, would not likely know much about a candidate from, say, New Hampshire in those days pre-automobile, pre-train, pre-internet, pre-telegraph, pre-radio/TV, when travel between those points would be not only impractical but could take literally weeks.

and

(c) to serve as a rational stopgap should a con artist Pied Piper type bamboozle hordes of voters into following his flute wherever he went.

As you can see, the bases of (a) and (b) no longer exist. And the function of (c) has been severely emasculated by so-called "faithless elector" laws. And then the whole thing got polluted by the mob mentality of the absurd "winner take all" malarkey --- which practice James Madison, himself an architect of that Electoral College, decried and called for a ban on even though it would lessen the power of his own state (which, yes Virginia, was, like Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler and Taylor... Virginia).

In short, the whole system belongs in the dustbin of history, as the ship for which it was designed, sailed long ago.

As to the city/rural vote, whelp, the simple mathematical fact is that much more concentration of people exists in cities. That's what makes them cities. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of whether their vote counts more or less. Moreover neither Democrats nor Republicans existed when the EC was created. In fact there were no parties at all.

While I appreciate your reply, it seems that you missed the premise of my question, and that could be due to the way I asked it. Thanks anyway.

I did not "miss" the premise. I demonstrated that it doesn't exist and is therefore not a legitimate premise.
The EC was absolutely NOT created to "give rural states a voice". That was never a consideration or a thing at all. The Senate was created for that purpose.

This was the reason why I asked my question to begin with,

Small States Get Equal Voice
The Electoral College helps give rural states with lower populations an equal voice.
If the popular vote alone decided elections, the presidential candidates would rarely visit those states or consider the needs of rural residents in their policy platforms.
Due to the Electoral College process, candidates must get votes from multiple states—large and small—thus helping to ensure that the president will address the needs of the entire country.

Learn Why the Founding Fathers Created the Electoral College

Here are some reasons why the United States should retain the Electoral College system and what the founding fathers intended when they created it.

www.thoughtco.com

I was trying to explain one of the reasons they have kept it for over 200 years and why it continues to work.
Hence my original question, and thats pretty much it.
I did NOT say thats the reason that it was created, and I thought I made that clear in my first sentence.

Roll tape.

So Ive been doing some reading about the EC, and there are several reasons why it was created and why it has worked for over 200 years..
As Im sure most of you know, one of tthose reason is that it helps give the rural states a voice in the process.

I kind of highlighted it a little bit.

It's erroneous. And it hasn't "worked" for 200 years either.

Maybe you need to read my first sentence again, and realize that the part you highlighted was from my second sentence, and is directly in reference to the first sentence. Meaning that "one of those reason is" that its worked for over 200 years, and what dont you understand about that ?

And further more, to your other comment.

No Bad Results
Even the harshest critics would have trouble proving that in more than 200 years of operation, the Electoral College system has produced bad results. Only twice have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision to the House of Representatives.

And who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

Jeebus. Here's a wag who thinks bold font makes it truer.

Quincy Adams was "elected" via the infamous "corrupt bargain" even though candidate Andrew Jackson had more votes both in the popular vote and the electoral college. Jefferson meanwhile would have been elected in 1796 over the elder Adams, if his state had adopted the equally-infamous "winner take all" malarkey, which it subsequently did, much to the consternation of the aforementioned James Madison. And that particular me-too snowball begat the surreal world wherein, for example, Doornail Rump, who could not muster more than 44% of the vote of Utah with an R after his name, nevertheless got 100% of that states electoral vote. And the end result of that was for more examples, the elections of 1876,1888, 2000 and 2016 -- all of them after Slavery was abolished and therefore not a factor in "Slave Power" for which the EC was designed --- in which the choice of the voters was denied the office.

And when you essplain to the class how that system can be characterized as "it worked", be sure to delve into the depths of that other corrupt bargain in 1876, when they couldn't even agree on who the electors WERE.

The EC as practiced, creates artificial "red states" and "blue states" -- terms which would not exist without it and thereby divides the country; tosses most votes directly into the trash, ensures that voters IN those so-called "red" and "blue" states have no reason whatsoever to show up since the outcome is pre-decided, and thereby suppresses voter turnout; and further ensures that the entire electoral system is doomed to a Duopoly system forever.

Essplain to me how that can be described as "a system that works".

Wow, you are really disconnected.
Let me guess, you are one of those China-oops sorry, Im mean Biden supporters, now aintcha ?? Tell the truth

 

[Pogo]

Actually the reason I showed up here in the first place was that the title: "State Electoral College" .... implied that it was going to make the excellent point that, if the EC is the bee's knees for electing a head of state, why isn't it also used to elect the head of a state? But it isn't, is it. There is no state among the 57, nor has there ever been, that sets up a state electoral vote from its various counties to elect the state's Governor. So that argument fails on that basis as well; it's either a legitimate system, or it isn't. No state has ever decided that it is.

Of course, there is also no state, nor has there ever been, that needed to appease some of its slaveholding counties by counting that county's slaves as three-fifths of a person for the census, thereby boosting the influence of that county so they would join the state, so that impetus wasn't there on that level.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

Actually the reason I showed up here in the first place was that the title: "State Electoral College" .... implied that it was going to make the excellent point that, if the EC is the bee's knees for electing a head of state, why isn't it also used to elect the head of a state? But it isn't, is it. There is no state among the 57, nor has there ever been, that sets up a state electoral vote from its various counties to elect the state's Governor. So that argument fails on that basis as well; it's either a legitimate system, or it isn't. No state has ever decided that it is.

Now that helped.
Thank you !

 

[dblack]

The EC was one of the many ways the founders sought to avoid pure democracy. They knew that under pure majority rule, the minority always gets fucked. So they empowered minorities, in various ways, to push back against the will of the majority.

The fact of the matter, and the lesson Democrats STILL haven't learned, is that the EC worked exactly as intended in 2016. It's supposed to push leaders into protecting the interests of all areas of the country, and punish them if they don't. The Dems really need to learn that. They also need to recognize that this election was the exact opposite of a "mandate". It was a rebuke. Despite the fact that they were running against Whizzo the Clown, they only barely defeated him, and were refused control of the Senate. And it was exactly because they dismissed the interests of rural America. Again.

 

[Pogo]

The EC was one of the many ways the founders sought to avoid pure democracy. They knew that under pure majority rule, the minority always gets fucked. So they empowered minorities, in various ways, to push back against the will of the majority.

The fact of the matter, and the lesson Democrats STILL haven't learned, is that the EC worked exactly as intended in 2016. It's supposed to push leaders into protecting the interests of all areas of the country, and punish them if they don't. The Dems really need to learn that - they also need to recognize that this election was the exact opposite of "mandate". It was a rebuke. Despite the fact that they're running against Whizzo the Clown, they only barely defeated him, and were refused control of the Senate.

Actually no. The Founders sought to placate the slaveholders, it's really that simple. All that shit you just shoveled onto it doesn't cover up the original stink.

Oh and they hardly "empowered minorities", now did they. You couldn't vote in the 18th century --- if voting was a possibility at all ---- if you weren't a connected, white, male, landowner.

 

[dblack]

The EC was one of the many ways the founders sought to avoid pure democracy. They knew that under pure majority rule, the minority always gets fucked. So they empowered minorities, in various ways, to push back against the will of the majority.

The fact of the matter, and the lesson Democrats STILL haven't learned, is that the EC worked exactly as intended in 2016. It's supposed to push leaders into protecting the interests of all areas of the country, and punish them if they don't. The Dems really need to learn that - they also need to recognize that this election was the exact opposite of "mandate". It was a rebuke. Despite the fact that they're running against Whizzo the Clown, they only barely defeated him, and were refused control of the Senate.

Actually no. The Founders sought to placate the slaveholders, it's really that simple. All that shit you just shoveled onto it doesn't cover up the original stink.

Oh and they hardly "empowered minorities", now did they. You couldn't vote in the 18th century --- if voting was a possibility at all ---- if you weren't a connected, white, male, landowner.

I seem to have touched a nerve. Apologies.

Regardless of your opinion of its origin, it functions just I described. It's an important buffer against the unbridled will of the majority. It's not a perfect system, by any means, and I'd be interested in others ways to achieve the same balance. But I think it would be foolish to eliminate it without some kind of replacement.

 

[Pogo]

The EC was one of the many ways the founders sought to avoid pure democracy. They knew that under pure majority rule, the minority always gets fucked. So they empowered minorities, in various ways, to push back against the will of the majority.

The fact of the matter, and the lesson Democrats STILL haven't learned, is that the EC worked exactly as intended in 2016. It's supposed to push leaders into protecting the interests of all areas of the country, and punish them if they don't. The Dems really need to learn that - they also need to recognize that this election was the exact opposite of "mandate". It was a rebuke. Despite the fact that they're running against Whizzo the Clown, they only barely defeated him, and were refused control of the Senate.

Actually no. The Founders sought to placate the slaveholders, it's really that simple. All that shit you just shoveled onto it doesn't cover up the original stink.

Oh and they hardly "empowered minorities", now did they. You couldn't vote in the 18th century --- if voting was a possibility at all ---- if you weren't a connected, white, male, landowner.

I seem to have touched a nerve. Apologies.

Regardless of your opinion of its origin, it functions just I described. It's an important buffer against the unbridled will of the majority. It's not a perfect system, by any means, and I'd be interested in others ways to achieve the same balance. But I think it would be foolish to eliminate it without some kind of replacement.

You don't "buff against" the will of the majority. The WHOLE POINT is that the majority carries the day.

Two sports teams play? The winner is the team with the MAJORITY of points.
Bidding for something in an auction? You'll need the biggest bid.
A state or district elects a Governor, a Senator, a Rep? Guess who gets elected -- the one with the most votes. Mayoral election? MAJORITY.
Etc etc etc.

Go ahead, show the class where a team that didn't score the most points won the game so the "tyranny of the majority" shouldn't prevail.

Poster please. Attain a grip.

 

[dblack]

The EC was one of the many ways the founders sought to avoid pure democracy. They knew that under pure majority rule, the minority always gets fucked. So they empowered minorities, in various ways, to push back against the will of the majority.

The fact of the matter, and the lesson Democrats STILL haven't learned, is that the EC worked exactly as intended in 2016. It's supposed to push leaders into protecting the interests of all areas of the country, and punish them if they don't. The Dems really need to learn that - they also need to recognize that this election was the exact opposite of "mandate". It was a rebuke. Despite the fact that they're running against Whizzo the Clown, they only barely defeated him, and were refused control of the Senate.

Actually no. The Founders sought to placate the slaveholders, it's really that simple. All that shit you just shoveled onto it doesn't cover up the original stink.

Oh and they hardly "empowered minorities", now did they. You couldn't vote in the 18th century --- if voting was a possibility at all ---- if you weren't a connected, white, male, landowner.

I seem to have touched a nerve. Apologies.

Regardless of your opinion of its origin, it functions just I described. It's an important buffer against the unbridled will of the majority. It's not a perfect system, by any means, and I'd be interested in others ways to achieve the same balance. But I think it would be foolish to eliminate it without some kind of replacement.

You don't "buff against" the will of the majority. The WHOLE POINT is that the majority carries the day.

Two sports teams play? The winner is the team with the MAJORITY of points.
Bidding for something in an auction? You'll need the biggest bid.
A state or district elects a Governor, a Senator, a Rep? Guess who gets elected -- the one with the most votes. Mayoral election? MAJORITY.
Etc etc etc.

Go ahead, show the class where a team that didn't score the most points won the game so the "tyranny of the majority" shouldn't prevail.

Poster please. Attain a grip.

I guess I just don't buy into the idea that democracy is sacred. It's not inherently good. It's best feature is that it's relatively stable - if most of the people feel like they were part of a decision, they'll be more likely to accept that decision. But it creates a situation where the majority can easily abuse the rights of the minority. The EC protects regions of the country that are sparsely populated from being ignored or dismissed in favor of the densely populated regions. I think it's a good thing.

If and when the Democrats absorb this, they'll modify their platform to win back the "rednecks". And it will make them a better, more inclusive, party.