Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trust me on this, if you lived in Wyoming, you'd be tired of the people in NY (and other populous states) dictating what Wyoming needs to do for itself.
I don't know about you, but when I go to the polls I vote for several seats that are up for election. I vote whether there's a presidential race or not. ALWAYS. The cost to count the vote for one extra office on the ballot is minimal.
Wyoming (and of course NY) are not a monolithic block with a single desire, need or interest. Electing a president "by states" is a flawed idea. (That's why we have a senate with equal representation). The president is ONE position that is supposed to serve all Americans, in all states, from every social and ethnic groups.
The current "hybrid" system, where all people vote (but not really, since states matter more) doesn't satisfy the need. In the past, one had to ride a horse for days to reach far away voters located in remote places. Today a cable show, internet or tweeter (trump uses it on a daily base) reaches Montana, Wyoming Kansas or NY at the same time.
It wasn't a bull**** question at all. Here it is: "What countries have significantly larger "houses of representatives"?" And if it was a bull**** question, why did you just answer it? Why didn't you answer it before instead of being insulting.
Now let's take a look at France as compared to the United States. To have representation equal to France's, our House Of Representatives would have to have 2,781 members. I'm sorry, I just don't think that's practical. Nor would it make much difference when many, if not most, votes are pretty much along party line.
It is a bullsh question, because it ignores my point altogether. It's misdirection.
As to your second point, it's actually very practical to have more representatives. Modern technology makes it practical. As for votes being along party lines, if we had more representatives, and constituents had greater access to their representatives, then the parties would have less influence. Which would make a difference.
My argument is very sound. It's consistent and well thought-out. Your argument isn't, as it's just an opinion, and you've offered up nothing to support your opinion. I've answered every challenge, even the irrelevant challenge like what countries have larger legislatures (because the United States is one of the world's largest countries, and the legislatures in representative democracies is largely a function of population size. But you knew that, and were just trying to misdirect the discussion.)
Wyoming (and of course NY) are not a monolithic block with a single desire, need or interest. Electing a president "by states" is a flawed idea. (That's why we have a senate with equal representation). The president is ONE position that is supposed to serve all Americans, in all states, from every social and ethnic groups.
The current "hybrid" system, where all people vote (but not really, since states matter more) doesn't satisfy the need. In the past, one had to ride a horse for days to reach far away voters located in remote places. Today a cable show, internet or tweeter (trump uses it on a daily base) reaches Montana, Wyoming Kansas or NY at the same time.
It's not just about the candidates being able to reach far away voters. It's about far away voters being able to reach the candidate, and having that candidate be receptive to their concerns. The electoral college in a small way helps smaller states have a voice in the discussion. The division in our country seems to be much more along rural/urban lines, and a national popular vote would render rural voices, like those in Wyoming, silent. Not because Wyoming is a monolithic bloc, but because rural concerns tend to be distinct from urban concerns. For instance, urbanites would like more and better public transportation options, but rural voters are more concerned with maintaining the freeway system that allows goods to move in and out of their locales. This is just one example of where rural versus urban conflict arises, but such conflicts are pervasive in our society.
The Electoral College works as it does, by design. If you had large states like California voting based on population alone they could easily impact the Presidential vote ( Swing the Vote). That would mean that citizens in low density population states like Wyoming would have almost no representation. As it is, there is a balance between population and state representation.
Although I haven't read ALL of the posts, I did not see anyone writing about factions. Factions are very small groups which form based on ideology. They can be very dangerous as they use their leverage to join/not join another group to give them a majority. These groups can easily tear away the fabric of society. The Founding Fathers knew this, they recognized the balance between rural and urban small and large states and made provisions to accommodate the wishes of the majority. Not the majority of one state ( CA) but the majority of the American people. Do away with the electoral college and you will be living in a place where factions run wild and the wishes of the most populous large states decide for everyone. No thanks. I'll take the Electoral College every day.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Thank you for posting that. A great example of how the Floundering Fathers were not always wise or moral. But I think they knew that, which is why they wanted to form (and have us continue to form) a "more perfect union".
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The Electoral College works as it does, by design. If you had large states like California voting based on population alone they could easily impact the Presidential vote ( Swing the Vote). That would mean that citizens in low density population states like Wyoming would have almost no representation. As it is, there is a balance between population and state representation.
Although I haven't read ALL of the posts, I did not see anyone writing about factions. Factions are very small groups which form based on ideology. They can be very dangerous as they use their leverage to join/not join another group to give them a majority. These groups can easily tear away the fabric of society. The Founding Fathers knew this, they recognized the balance between rural and urban small and large states and made provisions to accommodate the wishes of the majority. Not the majority of one state ( CA) but the majority of the American people. Do away with the electoral college and you will be living in a place where factions run wild and the wishes of the most populous large states decide for everyone. No thanks. I'll take the Electoral College every day.
The idea behind elections--or least what I thought--is that the candidate with the most votes wins. If more voters just happen to live in the state we call California than elsewhere and that has a big effect on the election that's the way an election is supposed to work. Its hardly a radical concept. Except for the presidential election all elections work that way.
Perhaps, if elections were determined by popular vote rather than electoral votes, you'd see certain politicians taking different positions on issues. My bet is that politicians would have to run a bit to the left of where they are right now. They would have to spend more time on a platform and issues that appeal to the areas where the bulk of popular votes are concentrated.
Imagine that. The politicians would have to try to represent a majority of the people.
The idea behind elections--or least what I thought--is that the candidate with the most votes wins. If more voters just happen to live in the state we call California than elsewhere and that has a big effect on the election that's the way an election is supposed to work. Its hardly a radical concept. Except for the presidential election all elections work that way.
Perhaps, if elections were determined by popular vote rather than electoral votes, you'd see certain politicians taking different positions on issues. My bet is that politicians would have to run a bit to the left of where they are right now. They would have to spend more time on a platform and issues that appeal to the areas where the bulk of popular votes are concentrated.
Imagine that. The politicians would have to try to represent a majority of the people.
Those are good points, but it's also important to understand that elections aren't just about what happens on election day. Elections are conversations, between the people and the candidates. And they truly are supposed to be conversations, with both sides participating. It's not just for candidates to present their positions and proposals, and for the voters to weigh in on election day what they think of the candidates. It's for the candidates to hear from the people, what issues the people are dealing with, what priorities the people have.
In a democracy urban areas have the advantage. Democracies are all about numbers, and urban residents outnumber rural residents.
If you don't provide some incentive for candidates to listen to the concerns of rural residents, then the candidates will only cater to urban residents, only listen to the urban residents. And then, where's the democracy, when rural residents are inevitably ignored?
It is random. One day our Congress just decided that this is enough people. There was and is no reason behind the number 435.
And what it does is it screws up representation. That's why in one district may have a population of 650,000 and another district has a population of 1,000,000. That's not equal representation. The 435 cap doesn't just skew representation, and therefore the electoral college, it also screws people out of equal representation.
With modern technology, our representatives could cast their votes from their home districts. They would be scattered across the country instead of in one central location, making it harder for lobbyists to access them, but making it easier for their constituencies to access them. By having more representatives, but representatives more tied to their districts, it would loosen the influence of the political parties, making representatives more responsive to their constituents.
The cap serves a purpose, it allows the political parties to control the legislators, rather than allowing constituents to control the legislators. It muffles the voice of the people. It may have made sense a century ago, but it doesn't make sense anymore.
So what I'm hearing is we should rather than change the cap for Represenatives, change the population cap. Say it is 1,000,000 people per rep, that means that New York City has 16 Represenatives in it of itself. That don't really help the problem. The house is big and bloated already. It also has little benefit to the Electoral College vote either.
In a side not, let's keep to the topic and not get side tracked by Congress unless the answer is Congress itself...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That don't really help the problem. The house is big and bloated already. It also has little benefit to the Electoral College vote either. 
