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.
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.
That is true. Plus it isn't a trek to go and vote. I mail my ballots in except for primaries since I could walk in and pick because I'm an independent (I just can't do this for a Presidential primary.) Most polling places are within 30 minutes of most voters. We need to rethink how we elect the President. Maybe we end up keeping the current system or fix it (I still say that Congress should only be used in ties, not nobody reached 270 no matter what is done with the college) or replaced with a Congressional vote or a popular vote. The fact remains, we need the conversation to happen.
thing people dont understand, united states was never a democracy, its not mob rule. the EC did exactly what it was design for and work perfect. those who wants to change it, want a mob rule, where a town like new york city would make policy for the whole nation. its like two wolfs and a sheep decided whats for dinner
The Electoral College works great. It gives EVERY state a voice versus the Popular Vote which would give basically California and New York a voice and leave the other 48 states out. That wouldn't work well. Besides, with all the illegals voting, I wouldn't be surprised if the popular vote was for Trump.
And the Liberals are complaining about the EC but they weren't complaining in 2008 when Hillary got more votes than Obummer but Obummer won more states. Hypocrites.
The Electoral College works great. It gives EVERY state a voice versus the Popular Vote which would give basically California and New York a voice and leave the other 48 states out. That wouldn't work well. Besides, with all the illegals voting, I wouldn't be surprised if the popular vote was for Trump.
It would only great if equal numbers of voters lived in all those states. They don't and its means that a small group of people can rule over a larger group of people with is the antithesis of an election.
Let's see all your proof of millions of illegals voting for Hillary.
You understand the idea that just because you say something is true, doesn't make it true, don't you?
The Electoral College works great. It gives EVERY state a voice versus the Popular Vote which would give basically California and New York a voice and leave the other 48 states out. That wouldn't work well. Besides, with all the illegals voting, I wouldn't be surprised if the popular vote was for Trump.
Where is your proof that illegals voted in the election, let alone voted for Hillary? You can't make a claim like that without proof and that is what Trump does all the damn time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss1234
And the Liberals are complaining about the EC but they weren't complaining in 2008 when Hillary got more votes than Obummer but Obummer won more states. Hypocrites.
The primaries and the general election two different things. The primaries are a series of votes at different times, the generals are at worst that in a single day but masqueraded as a single election. Plus there are super delegates at play in the primaries (specifically Democrat) too that aren't tied to individual state wins. These supee delegates aren't even in the Electoral College. I think also Obama was close enough to Hillary that her supporters went into the big tent rather than Bernie's who blamed everyone but their ground game and get out the vote for the primaries.
The Electoral College was created as a direct result of slavery.
The southern states objected to electing the president with a direct popular vote because a large portion of the southern population were slaves and as such could not vote. The southern plantation owners feared that the North would always dominate a popular vote because there were more white voters in the north. The three-fifths compromise was brokered to allow the southern states to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of calculating the number of presidential electors.
The stated purpose of the Electoral College, to accommodate slavery as an institution, as long since evaporated. It is time to send the Electoral College into the dust bin of history where it belongs.
It's called a compromise because it does not count ALL slaves in the census for the purpose of determining how many representatives a state would have, and it does not count NONE of them.
The Framers were never going to approve a constitution with a direct election of the president. That would have been absurd, and the Framers were never absurd.
It's called a compromise because it does not count ALL slaves in the census for the purpose of determining how many representatives a state would have, and it does not count NONE of them.
Nor does that matter. In categorizing the population between "free," "temporarily bound," and "others other than free or temporarily bound," the Framers set a situation that reduced the power of being a slaveholder below that which the slaveholders desired. Slaveholders wanted their slaves fully counted but did not get what they wanted; abolitionists would not have counted slaves at all. Yes, this was a compromise, but it was a compromise that still works when nobody is in the category of "other other than free or temporarily bound."
Quote:
The Framers were never going to approve a constitution with a direct election of the president. That would have been absurd, and the Framers were never absurd.
We have to understand and remember what the essential compromise really was. The issue of counting free versus counting "bound" was only a census rule. Just a census rule.
The essential compromise(aka the "Great Compromise") was the balance of equality of states in the Union versus population of states in the Union.
Not a single one of those autonomous states would have ratified a constitution that did not look toward equality of states in the Union in both the Executive and Legislative Branches. The most populous would not have accepted a constitution that did not look toward the power of numbers.
The Electoral College does the same thing for the Executive Branch that two Houses do for the Legislative Branch: It provides a compromise between the equality of each state in the Union and the power of numbers.
The need for that compromise has not diminished at all.
Exactly. The electoral college tends to pit one state against another. Trump could try to punish blue states because he knows they would never vote for him anyway, so being the childish, vindictive person that he is, he could make things more difficult for people those states.
If he did, Trump wouldn't be the first POTUS to do so.
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.
