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.
If those elections were by popular vote the campaigns would have been run differently. No guarantee that Gore and Clinton would have won the popular vote when their opponent would have been campaigning for popular vote.
One complaint about the Clinton campaign from insiders was she didn't understand "how many" is not as important as "who".
I suppose nothing in life is "guaranteed". What is accurate is that democrats tend to draw more votes in large city and urban areas. Republicans tend to get more votes in rural and suburban areas.
If we had been using a popular vote in 2016, its hard for me to believe that Clinton would not have won. Trump was not going to carry the large cities period.
What I can say for certain is that nominees would have to campaign on issues that are more suited to the needs of urban and minority voters than they currently do. A major criticism of the EC is that many of these needs go neglected by candidates because these votes don't count for as much as those of voters in smaller population states.
Which is just a way of saying that smaller group of voters gets to prevail over a larger group of voters. This is the antithesis of what an election is all about.
True or false. States are non-living entities.
True or false. Non-living entities are not human and therefore do not have rights.
The "rights" that we speak of are accorded to the people who live in those states. A citizen in Wyoming, Alaska, and Delaware should have no more a right when it comes to voting than a citizen in California, Florida, or Texas.
Please stop acting like states have rights. They don't have rights any more than automobiles do.
I might be more accepting of your argument if decisions made by majorities were always the right decisions. The Framers, however, did not believe that might makes right; they required supermajorities for the ratification of treaties and the amending of the Constitution. The Senate was intended to represent the states in their dealings with the national government. And it was the states that elected the president, unlike the parliamentary systems where a house of Commons elect a prime minister.
Like it or not, the US has a federal system of government. If you do not like the laws and politics in a state, you can vote to change them, or you can vote with your feet.
Consider the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The changes to the Constitution being recommended by many of the commenters here would actually make the Union less perfect, less just, less tranquil, and make our liberty less secure for us and our posterity.
If you read about the discussions the framers of the constitution had on this subject you will come away with an understanding of just why it is the way it is. It took them over a month to come up with the electoral college system (it wasn't called the electoral college) and there was a lot of heated debates over this. The first suggestion was a purely democratic vote, that was shot down because it allowed the largest population centers to dictate to the rest of the country on matters that effected the Union as a whole. Then they toyed around with the idea of having congress pick the POTUS, but this could lead to collusion within congress and again the Union would suffer, so, in short, the electoral system was adopted.
The framers didn't like the idea of political parties choosing the POTUS and seeing how the States created the Union, the selection of the president would be left up to the states and the voters in the states. Each state would have equal representation because each state had 2 senators, and the people would have representation based on their states number of representatives. This worked very, until political parties got their fingers into the system.
Prior to the 17 amendment the only federal office that was elected by democratic vote was the House of Representatives, this was done for a reason because they represent the People, and were expected to make sure the central government worked for the people. Senators were appointed by the States, because they represent the State, and were expected to do the job of running the Union. One has to remember, we are a limited democracy and a Representative Constitutional Republic.
The founding fathers, when they participated in the drafting of the US Constitution, didn't really have any ideas about parties, unless the concept of "factions" stood for political parties in their minds.
And they are doing it again. Instead of recruiting good candidates for all of the house and 1/3 of the senate in 2018 they still think hating Trump is a campaign strategy.
This is off-topic so I'll reply in spoilers.
Spoiler
First off, Trump was in support and still is for removing Obama care with no real plan behind it. Second, Trump has done nothing but run his mouth about naysayers on his Twitter. Third, he has sigmed executive orders that he criticized Obama for. Fourth, he won't even mention the problem with the Robert E. Lee rally fisaco where we see a dead American. Fifth, Republicans ran similar campaigns against Obama and Clinton in their first mid-term.
I might be more accepting of your argument if decisions made by majorities were always the right decisions. The Framers, however, did not believe that might makes right; they required supermajorities for the ratification of treaties and the amending of the Constitution. The Senate was intended to represent the states in their dealings with the national government. And it was the states that elected the president, unlike the parliamentary systems where a house of Commons elect a prime minister.
Like it or not, the US has a federal system of government. If you do not like the laws and politics in a state, you can vote to change them, or you can vote with your feet.
Consider the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The changes to the Constitution being recommended by many of the commenters here would actually make the Union less perfect, less just, less tranquil, and make our liberty less secure for us and our posterity.
I get that but it seems like it has outlived its useful life as it stands. We need to change it because with the system as is it decentifies votes. The liberals in Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas Kentucky, etc. have about as much reason to vote as the conservatives in New York, New Jersey and California. The system decentifies votes. I have little reason to vote D in Arizona.
It does need a change but like many changes to America that need to happen, it won't because most parties are happy. That don't mean we can't force the change though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89
The founding fathers, when they participated in the drafting of the US Constitution, didn't really have any ideas about parties, unless the concept of "factions" stood for political parties in their minds.
Washington warned of political parties and to date is the only independent President. He did lean to the Federalist side BUT he never joined them. Then we saw the mess it gave us in the 1798 and 1802 elections with the vice presidency that caused one of the first non Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution.
We live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. I get your point, but the way the game is played is by getting the most delegates, not the popular vote. If it went by popular vote, the way both sides campaigned would've been different. Like I said, there are a lot of people in deep-blue and deep-red states that don't even bother voting because they know how their state is going to vote.
I totally agree and have made the point that the vote-rich suburbs of New York and Los Angeles would have had both more attention and better turnouts if their Republican votes mattered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmil
I'm not a Democrat, and I'm definitely no Hillary fan, but if she spent more time campaigning in the midwest than at LA and NY fundraisers with her rich friends, she might've won.
That assumes that she gains popularity by exposure. I'm not so sure given how odious her appearance seems to be. And yes I voted for her. But frankly she's many people's idea of a nasty mother-in-law.
And they are doing it again. Instead of recruiting good candidates for all of the house and 1/3 of the senate in 2018 they still think hating Trump is a campaign strategy.
This is off-topic so I'll reply in spoilers.First off, Trump was in support and still is for removing Obama care with no real plan behind it. Second, Trump has done nothing but run his mouth about naysayers on his Twitter. Third, he has sigmed executive orders that he criticized Obama for. Fourth, he won't even mention the problem with the Robert E. Lee rally fisaco where we see a dead American. Fifth, Republicans ran similar campaigns against Obama and Clinton in their first mid-term.
As far as Obamacare goes many people were insured before it. Basically Obamacare replaced one fiasco with another. As for Twitter, how else can he reply to his critics? Will any media beside Fox News carry his responses? As for the Charlottesville situation it's brad new and frankly DPRK/NK is probably taking is attention now.
Proportional allocation of electoral votes would give third parties a better chance, but would increase the chances of inconclusive elections, throwing the election into a heavily gerrymandered and unrepresentative House of Representative, with the vote even further skewed to the right by the vote being by delegation, not by member.
Going to proportional electoral voting would only work, it seems to me, if a runoff election between the top two vote-getters replaces the House vote.
I get that but it seems like it has outlived its useful life as it stands. We need to change it because with the system as is it decentifies votes.
What does "decentifies" mean? Similar to "covfefe"? Or did you mean "disincentivize"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
The liberals in Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas Kentucky, etc. have about as much reason to vote as the conservatives in New York, New Jersey and California. The system decentifies votes. I have little reason to vote D in Arizona.
So changing the system will change "ground zero" in campaigning from Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina to the LA and NYC suburbs. Big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
It does need a change but like many changes to America that need to happen, it won't because most parties are happy. That don't mean we can't force the change though.
In a constitutional convention the small states won't play ball on this. Getting actual change is "whistling Dixie."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Washington warned of political parties and to date is the only independent President. He did lean to the Federalist side BUT he never joined them. Then we saw the mess it gave us in the 1798 and 1802 elections with the vice presidency that caused one of the first non Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution.
The 1798 and 1802 elections were mid-term. Were they messy? And as far as "joining" the Federalists I don't know that there was formal joinder in those days. I don't know when or how that started but Washington's ideology was, like Hamilton's, definitely Federalist.
This is not a democratic society. How is the worst president EVER elected while Hillary had more than 3,000,000 more votes more than him. I am not a Hillary supporter, but to have a racist in the white house that is as corrupt as any politician ever was is disgusting. We are a laughing stock to every other country. If Trump has his way, there be a nuclear war and we don't have to worry about Presidency in 2020.
ONE PERSON ONE VOTE!!!
Last edited by warren zee; 08-13-2017 at 12:48 PM..
Reason: added a sentence
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.
