USA's majority of voters shouldn't simply determine the presidency.

[Supposn]

USA's majority of voters shouldn't simply determine the presidency.

In my less than humble opinion, the number of members representing each individual state within the United States' House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Electoral College were among the first constitutional convention's compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states.
Whatever is proposed to replace the U.S. Electoral College, should be required to continue respecting our historic compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states. For that reason, the office of U.S. President shouldn't be determined by just the simple majority of our nation's voters. Respectfully, Supposn

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 2, Guests: 1)​

 

[Kilroy2]

Republicans would never win and it because of the fix, They should have voter write in instead of all that technology. If people had to write in the name, then the fool who wants to cheat will have a lot of work to do.

 

[Independent thinker]

Republicans would never win and it because of the fix, They should have voter write in instead of all that technology. If people had to write in the name, then the fool who wants to cheat will have a lot of work to do.

Are you saying you are questioning elections?

 

[Lesh]

USA's majority of voters shouldn't simply determine the presidency.

In my less than humble opinion, the number of members representing each individual state within the United States' House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Electoral College were among the first constitutional convention's compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states.
Whatever is proposed to replace the U.S. Electoral College, should be required to continue respecting our historic compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states. For that reason, the office of U.S. President shouldn't be determined by just the simple majority of our nation's voters. Respectfully, Supposn

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 2, Guests: 1)​

What that ignores is the outsized amount of power that those less populated states already have.

With millions of less voters they have gained control of the Supreme Court and have just a few members short of control of the House as well as an equal number of Senators
'
That minority could well gain control of all three branches of government and STILL be a distinct minority.

Does that sound right?

It's not

 

[GMCGeneral]

What that ignores is the outsized amount of power that those less populated states already have.

With millions of less voters they have gained control of the Supreme Court and have just a few members short of control of the House as well as an equal number of Senators
'
That minority could well gain control of all three branches of government and STILL be a distinct minority.

Does that sound right?

It's not

Better than the Far Left one party dictatorship you want, Lush.

 

[Lesh]

Better than the Far Left one party dictatorship you want, Lush.

Rule by (Republican)minority is your one party dictatorship… and you love that idea

 

[Supposn]

What that ignores is the outsized amount of power that those less populated states already have.

With millions of less voters they have gained control of the Supreme Court and have just a few members short of control of the House as well as an equal number of Senators
'
That minority could well gain control of all three branches of government and STILL be a distinct minority.

Does that sound right?

It's not

Lesh, gerrymandering, the determination of congressional districts boundaries within the states, is a political problem that argued in our courts but should be addressed by our congress; I don't foresee that occurring during my children's lifetimes.

The per capita differences of representation among our states isn't due to gerrymandering; it was a compromise necessary to the creation of our nation. Our lesser populated states will not willingly reduce their representation in the congress or the electoral college unlessthey receive something they consider to be of equal value to themselves.

Regarding gerrymandering, refer to the initial message of this discussion tread
and to the threads, www.usmessageboard.com/threads/a-remedy-to-gerrymandering.1051893/#post-32580229
and
An immodest proposal for general elections of U.S. Member of Congress and our presidents. | US Message Board ?

1. Respectfully, Suppson

 

[kyzr]

To simplify. The Electoral College will NEVER be replaced or modified.

Hope that clarifies the OP.

 

[hadit]

What that ignores is the outsized amount of power that those less populated states already have.

With millions of less voters they have gained control of the Supreme Court and have just a few members short of control of the House as well as an equal number of Senators
'
That minority could well gain control of all three branches of government and STILL be a distinct minority.

Does that sound right?

It's not

Of course it is when you consider that this is a UNION of sovereign states, and the smaller ones need protection from the larger ones. It's quite a fair system because California has no business dictating policy for Alabama.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Of course it is when you consider that this is a UNION of sovereign states, and the smaller ones need protection from the larger ones. It's quite a fair system because California has no business dictating policy for Alabama.

Neither does New York for Kentucky

 

[expat_panama]

Of course it is when you consider that this is a UNION of sovereign states, and the smaller ones need protection from the larger ones. It's quite a fair system because California has no business dictating policy for Alabama.

Back when GWBush got elected the state of California announced that it intended to abolish the electoral college, and there was even a movement there to allocate delegates by popular vote the way Maine does. Then they thought about it and changed their mind.

California is very much in favor of state's rights when it comes to California's rights, they just don't care about other states having the same rights.

 

[Kilroy2]

Are you saying you are questioning elections?

No as I was trying to consider how a republican feels about current elections , I am just offering an alternative to those who question elections.

 

[elektra]

With millions of less voters they have gained control of the Supreme Court and have just a few members short of control of the House as well as an equal number of Senators
'
That minority could well gain control of all three branches of government and STILL be a distinct minority.

Does that sound right?

??????
lesh does not understand our government, there is no logic, fact in this post.

Control of the house? The house of representatives is based on the population of state, more people, more representation.

Lesh, it appears you do not believe that minorities should have equal representation.

 

[BluesLegend]

What that ignores is the outsized amount of power that those less populated states already have.

LOL California has 54 votes, Alaska has 3. Work on your math skills.

 

[DBA]

Rule by (Republican)minority is your one party dictatorship… and you love that idea

Whether you like it or not, we are a nation of states, each one of them getting representation at the federal level. The President is the highest office in the US and wields enormous power with veto power, the ability to appoint an entire cabinet and justices, when seats are available. A pure popular vote for the President would give highly populous states a perpetually unfair representation at the highest level of government. It is one thing to have a Democrat like Joe in office every so often followed by a Republican who can switch back things that he/she feels the previous President did wrong. They kind of balance each other out. A popular vote would eliminate that balance, leading to big city, Democratic policies everywhere, which would be a disaster for the country.