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.
You can't re-score the game under a different set of rules after the fact and declare Hillary would have been President without the EC. That's like your sports team finishing second based on won-loss record and whining that they scored more total points. A different playing field and rules would have yielded a different campaign strategy. Maybe she would have won, maybe not.
It would kill the event for the media, though. No state-by-state running battle. They wouldn't be able to release numbers until all states had voted then announced the result. The talking heads and their "path to 270 electors" would be unemployed.
And can you imagine a race where the popular vote was within the recount margin and the entire nation had to complete a manual recount?
You can't re-score the game under a different set of rules after the fact and declare Hillary would have been President without the EC. That's like your sports team finishing second based on won-loss record and whining that they scored more total points. A different playing field and rules would have yielded a different campaign strategy. Maybe she would have won, maybe not.
It would kill the event for the media, though. No state-by-state running battle. They wouldn't be able to release numbers until all states had voted then announced the result. The talking heads and their "path to 270 electors" would be unemployed.
And can you imagine a race where the popular vote was within the recount margin and the entire nation had to complete a manual recount?
Simply propose an amendment to eliminate the 2 senators from the electoral count and you have at least made the process more democratic. In that case you wouldn't be doing a national popular vote but one based on state representative districts.
Simply propose an amendment to eliminate the 2 senators from the electoral count and you have at least made the process more democratic. In that case you wouldn't be doing a national popular vote but one based on state representative districts.
The words "simply" and "amendment" should never be in the same sentence.
Do you mean reduce the number of electors each state has by two? That would cut the number of electors to just 1 for about 7 states.
The words "simply" and "amendment" should never be in the same sentence.
Do you mean reduce the number of electors each state has by two? That would cut the number of electors to just 1 for about 7 states.
Yes. But then the whiners from California would have less standing to complain that Montana is overrepresented since each member of Congress represents roughly (if I remember) around 750K people.
Yes. But then the whiners from California would have less standing to complain that Montana is overrepresented since each member of Congress represents roughly (if I remember) around 750K people.
I have tried to explain the part in bold more than once, and way too many people on both sides still don't seem to get it. Eliminating the EC would not give inordinate power to any state, it would give equal power to each individual voter, regardless of location.
The problem is that urban populations ALWAYS outnumber rural populations. And the two have different interests and different priorities. The Electoral College does serve an interest. It provides a small incentive for candidates to involve rural areas in the conversation about the direction the nation needs to go. It's a tiny incentive, but it is important that people who live in rural areas feel like they are a part of the discourse.
And there really isn't any problem with the Electoral College. The problem is with the cap on the membership in the House of Representatives. That cap has skewed the number of citizens each representative is supposed to represent by state. That cap has empowered lobbyists and corporations to have an undue influence on the laws that are passed in this nation. One person cannot represent more than a million people, and actually respond to those people. That one person is going to respond to the money that's needed to keep getting him or her elected. This skewed representation, and the state-level laws that have been passed to keep the two major parties in power and make third party challenges difficult, are what have caused the problems with the electoral college.
Why is it that Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem with the Electoral College
I'm not a Democrat, but since the Democratic Party is a private entity they can run their candidate selection process however they see fit.
Not so with an actual federal election. I assume you see the difference, yes?
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.
