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 you don't understand federalism, you probably need to get up to speed.
That's exactly what you have right now. One person, one vote, in your State.
If you don't understand federalism, you'll probably need a crash course.
You can cite me.
I have a BA in Political Science (and a BA in Economics and a BS in Law Enforcement), and a Master's in Political Science and a PhD in International Relations.
You can also read the committee notes and diaries of any of these men: Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Davie, Oliver Ellsworth, Benjamin Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, Luther Martin, George Mason, William Paterson, John Rutledge or Robert Yates, since they actually designed the Senate and gave it its powers.
You are assuming that to understand is to agree, and this is not necessarily the case.
No, the EC was pure elitism by the founders who were a bunch of aristocrats. They believed in giving the vote to the common people (as long as they were white males) but still didn't trust them to vote "right" so they put in place the EC which was supposed to be a bunch of rich white guys who would be more likely to vote the "right" way. It was always an elitist sham and it is time for it to go.
Get busy lining up your 38 states. You don't have time to be on here complaining.
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.
California has 55 electoral votes - most of any state, and every election the democrat candidate starts with 55 in his pocket.
The system is fair - you just don't like it.
The house is based on majority rule.
The senate is based on 2 per state - equal weight
The vote for president is a mix of both.
Quit bellyaching! Unless you get 38 states to jump on board and change the constitution, you are wasting your breath.
Find a candidate that can win some flyover states and maybe you're on the right track!
California has 55 electoral votes - most of any state, and every election the democrat candidate starts with 55 in his pocket.
The system is fair - you just don't like it.
The house is based on majority rule.
The senate is based on 2 per state - equal weight
The vote for president is a mix of both.
Quit bellyaching! Unless you get 38 states to jump on board and change the constitution, you are wasting your breath.
Find a candidate that can win some flyover states and maybe you're on the right track!
There are also states where the Republican candidate has a similar lock. That's really part of the point here: the fact that certain states are more or less a given, one way or the other. As a Democrat in a red state, I feel my vote is pretty useless, and believe it or not, I sympathize with Republicans in blue states who feel the same way.
It's interesting to me that most of the people defending the EC believe that abolishing it would automatically hand an advantage to the Democrats. Election by popular vote could potentially change voting patterns and turnout to such a degree that no one could accurately predict the results.
I doubt you will believe me, but I truly do not see this as a partisan issue. It's something I have believed in for years, way before I even affiliated with a party.
There are also states where the Republican candidate has a similar lock. That's really part of the point here: the fact that certain states are more or less a given, one way or the other. As a Democrat in a red state, I feel my vote is pretty useless, and believe it or not, I sympathize with Republicans in blue states who feel the same way.
It's interesting to me that most of the people defending the EC believe that abolishing it would automatically hand an advantage to the Democrats. Election by popular vote could potentially change voting patterns and turnout to such a degree that no one could accurately predict the results.
I doubt you will believe me, but I truly do not see this as a partisan issue. It's something I have believed in for years, way before I even affiliated with a party.
Yeah, maybe. But a lock on 3 votes is a lot less advantageous than a lock on 55.
There are also states where the Republican candidate has a similar lock. That's really part of the point here: the fact that certain states are more or less a given, one way or the other. As a Democrat in a red state, I feel my vote is pretty useless, and believe it or not, I sympathize with Republicans in blue states who feel the same way.
It's interesting to me that most of the people defending the EC believe that abolishing it would automatically hand an advantage to the Democrats. Election by popular vote could potentially change voting patterns and turnout to such a degree that no one could accurately predict the results.
I doubt you will believe me, but I truly do not see this as a partisan issue. It's something I have believed in for years, way before I even affiliated with a party.
Here in PA the democrat won in '92, '96, '00, '04, '08, '12. Six straight times. And all of those guys won without any of my votes. I never complained about the electoral college during any of those elections. it is what it is and it's not going anywhere.
Yeah, maybe. But a lock on 3 votes is a lot less advantageous than a lock on 55.
No EC = no lock on any state, red or blue, which, IMO at least, is as it should be. It simply means that everyone's vote would carry the same weight on a national level.
Also...what's up with the apparent left/right divide on this issue? The EC does not inherently favor either party. It does, however, make it very difficult for any independent or third party candidate to get any real traction.
A Democrat introduced a bill.........that's not the same as THE DEMOCRATS.
I know silly words that have meanings.
As for the Presidential pardon thing -- that's not such a bad idea.
I struggle with the electoral college because it does end up that the most popular person doesn't become President. It doesn't seem to be the will of the people if someone with fewer votes gets to claim the prize.
But I get why there is an electoral college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
Yet it 2013 - it was the REPUBLICANS who wanted to change the electoral college.
Perhaps they didn't understand.
Did any repubs introduce a bill to eliminate the electoral college?
If so, how many repubs voted for it to be out of committee.
How many dems voted to get it out of committee?
Dis it ever make it the floor for a final vote?
I will repeat, "[quote=moneill;54062999]A Democrat introduced a bill.........that's not the same as THE DEMOCRATS.
"
Originally Posted by Ringo1
Yet it 2013 - it was the REPUBLICANS who wanted to change the electoral college>
MANY of us want the college change to be proportional and NOT winner take all.
Take Ca, for instance. The over 6 million people vote for Trump got their votes ignored because Ca is a winner take all.
The same with a LOT of states.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 01-07-2019 at 05:57 AM..
Whatever the system is, the smart Presidential candidates/parties will adjust their approach and win. For example, in 2016, Trump campaigned like the energizer bunny, crisscrossing the U.S. and stopping wherever he needed to, to gain electoral votes. HRC couldn't keep up and instead did most of her campaigning in major population centers, avoiding the "deplorables" who represented fewer EC votes. (And isn't that the attitude of the left elitists who carry-on about 'hayseeds,' 'flyover states' and changing to a popular vote system?
Suppose we had a popular vote system. Does anyone believe the candidates would campaign the same way in the same places? Of course not! Like HRC, they would ignore the rest of the country and spend their time, money and effort solely in the top 7-10 population states. Then, if the left lost, they would cry that their candidate would have won under a different system and want to change the rules again.
" HRC couldn't keep up and instead did most of her campaigning in major population centers,"
She made MORE trips to Hollywood then anther place in order to get MORE campaign money. Didn't help her.
Great idea. The electoral college is a system that doesn't make sense anymore given our increasingly urban population. One person, one vote. The concept seems pretty simple to me. Besides, if Congress believes eliminating it is a bad idea, the bill will fail and it won't matter anyway.
That's a non starter. The system was set up specifically to ensure a handful of densely populated centers didn't dictate to the rest of the country. You will not disenfranchise the rest of the country. Period.
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.
