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.
hitlery had LESS than 3 million, not over... 2.8 million nationally
and she won California by more than 4.3 million
which means the ONLY reason she got the "popular" vote is California
So what? Trump won by fewer than 80,000 votes in 3 states, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won those states by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes.
How is that fair and how can you people keep claiming that he was given some kind of mandate?
This logic is deeply flawed. Doing away with the EC would take states out of the equation altogether. That means one thing: the vote of a conservative in New York or California would actually count, as would the vote of a liberal in Utah or Mississippi. A Texan's vote would carry as much weight as a Vermonter's. It would NOT be about just a few states controlling anything, and the fact is, no one really knows what the outcome would be. Think about it: how many people probably stay home on election day because they believe the results within their state to be a foregone conclusion? Counting all votes equally would probably encourage much greater interest and turnout. Then again, maybe you consider that a bad thing.
That's exactly right, and it's bizarre to support a system that was never intended to function when some states have fewer than a million people and others have 40 million should be allowed to continue because it clearly benefits conservatives.
I agree. How many people on both sides don't vote because they live in a state where their vote will be negated? We don't choose where we live according to politics. There are D's in Texas and R's in both California and New York. And there are people like you and I who are not tied to any party and sometimes our vote may count and other times not so much. Everyone's vote should always count.
Abolish "winner-take-all" and assign a proprtionally-accurate number of electors that represents population figures.
It's about small states like New Hampshire not being bullied by larger states like California or New York dictating national policy for the rest of US.Isn't this an example of equality and fairness that you liberals always cry about?
No, that is not why the framers gave us the electoral college, there is nothing anywhere that supports your claim. The Electoral College was designed for one purpose only; the Framers were apprehensive about the common voters being swayed by demagogues, so they established the Electoral College to ensure that the educated 'elites' would make a better choice than the uneducated general population, and the irony is that the electoral college resulted in electing the least qualified President in history.
Most of us understand that and don't need a primer on it, but it's generally recognized that the founding fathers did not envision states with the population of California.
I think they did. There was no delusion that the states would be equally populated or that South Carolina would ever be as populous as New York. But South Carolina didn't want to be part of a union whereby they simply follow law set by New York. The architecture of the Senate was directly in response to each states' desire to have an equal voice without regard to population. To say they didn't understand the potential (or current existence) of population disparity is ridiculous. It was central to most discussions.
Don't agree with part one. Eliminating the EC would have an unintended consequence of candidates only campaigning in densely populated areas (New York, Texas and Cali) and leaving the rest alone. Having an EC gives small states a say and, this part I like, makes the candidates have to work; all the states during a campaign.
I do agree that part two has to be addressed, in some way. Conflict of interest has to be dealt with.
In practice what it has led to is the minority party in terms of popular support running the country. That is a very negative outcome. The small states should have a say...but not to the extent of the minority party running everything.
I agree. How many people on both sides don't vote because they live in a state where their vote will be negated? We don't choose where we live according to politics. There are D's in Texas and R's in both California and New York. And there are people like you and I who are not tied to any party and sometimes our vote may count and other times not so much. Everyone's vote should always count.
The only way everyone's vote counts is with proportional results instead of winner take all. For the presidency or any other one-person elective office, only winner take all can work. If we keep the electoral college [we will] and each state adopts a form of allocating electors according to some type of votes received, we'd get closer to every vote counting.
Sometimes I see an advantage to voting in a non-competitive state as I do because there's less angst in deciding who to vote for.
I think they did. There was no delusion that the states would be equally populated or that South Carolina would ever be as populous as New York. But South Carolina didn't want to be part of a union whereby they simply follow law set by New York. The architecture of the Senate was directly in response to each states' desire to have an equal voice without regard to population. To say they didn't understand the potential (or current existence) of population disparity is ridiculous. It was central to most discussions.
Yep. South Carolina wanted to keep it's slaves.
And the Presudent doesnt dictate law. The small states would still be protected by the Senate and by the cinsiderable powers wielded by state governments. I do t umderstand why people equate small states having a say with alliwing them to completely run things while ignoring completely the will of the majority of Americans as expressed at the ballot box, which is the situation that we have now.Having a say should not mean running the entire government. The Senate is a bulwark against domination by the more populous states.
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.
