Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by kaz, May 23, 2019.
Then you can remain ignorant. It's not my problem.
A speculation piece? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Your side does not care enough to insure electoral integrity to make your idea workable.
As long as one side is not interested in enforcing our election laws and standards it is impossible to make sure "every vote counts". Quite to the contrary any illegal vote cast (felons, impersonating legal voters, multiple votes, dead people voting, illegals casting ballots) that isn't being enforced immediately and absolutely negates legal opposition voters.
That should not be tolerated.
Mid, I'm starting to be surprised at you. You're normally among the better liberal posters on this forum, and you're completely missing the point I've now made twice or three times: It doesn't matter if I think the electoral college is good or bad, it only matters if you can get a constitutional amendment passed, and you can't do so. The small states that you'd have to recruit to get such a measure passed would have to agree, and they will not agree.
And they won't agree because your point about having the same vote as a person is Montana or Rhode Island is wrong -- without the electoral college the votes from RI or Montana won't matter at all, and candidates will neither campaign in, nor address the concerns of, those areas. Why would they, when they can win simply on votes from NY, LA, Denver, Boston, Miami and Atlanta? Candidates go to swing states now because they need them to win votes in the electoral college. Take that away and they'll no more visit a state like Missouri or Ohio than they'd visit Paris -- they'd campaign only in big urban areas for the same reason that bank robbers rob banks to get money.
The electoral college is absurd and outdated.Americans want true democracy,like the other countries.The new generation of voters someday soon will reject this relic from the past
You assume states have electoral power even though the fact is that most states are one party states....California will go dem no matter what.
That’s what progress looks like under capitalism. Differentiation into two great irreconcilable classes whose antagonisms are finally laid bare for all to see. Next step, expropriation of those billionaires.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is fully consistent with the current constitutionally prescribed method of electing the president.
I’m saying rural America would be better off if rural voters did not have disproportionate power.
Yes, and I think that means smaller states need to be protected. One such protection is the electoral college.
Voter impersonation is about as rare as the same person being struck by lightning three times. A state is within its constitutional rights to allow felons or “illegals” to vote. Their doing so without authorization is so rare as to be nearly unheard of. Ballot box stuffing is overwhelmingly the province of the Republican Party and the Electoral College increases the incentive for it since it needs to be done only on a small scale in order to alter a close state’s electoral vote winner.
You must have missed my post about the National Popular Vote Compact...it has been passed in enough states to have almost 200 EC votes committed to the winner of the national popular vote. So there goes your constitutional amendment argument.
Then we have your assertion that if the popular vote picks the president then votes in Montana won't matter....are you kidding? They don't matter now. There were no campaign events in Montana in 2016....and none in RI. The candidates went to Ohio, PA, VA and FLA....
Protected from what? You some how have equated the 80,000 votes that won the election for Trump to the 3 million more votes that went for Clinton...and that actually makes sense to you.
Unless the cities were divided in which case rural voters would have the balance of power.
So if all the cities were overwhelmingly in favor of a single candidate, would it make sense to let a small rural minority overrule them?
I must have -- but enough states are opting out that it won't matter, and if it ever affects the outcome of a presidential election, I'd expect the losing candidate to go to SCOTUS. The constitution establishes the electoral college, not a popular vote system, and the laws might be challengeable on those grounds.
But yes, a popular vote means those votes won't matter. There will no longer be battleground states -- merely a national election (which was never designed -- it was stated many times that what was being created was a federal government, not a national one), in which the states with the largest populations rule everyone else.
Protected from a coalition of larger, more heavily populated states.
1. One goal was to balance regional interests, at a time when different states had different modes of production and radically different economies. Today this is not the case ... the economy in one state looks pretty much like the economy in another.
2. Another was as a hedge against democracy, in order to protect the interests of an elite. History has decided against the sort of oligarchy the founders intended.
3. Another was due to the practical limitations on campaigning in an era before mass media or rapid travel. Not an issue today.
Look at state-level elections in states like Illinois. In Illinois, there's Chicago and everywhere else -- and the rural portions of the state don't matter. Elections are run almost exclusively on Chicago/urban issues.
Another example is Missouri, where a governor can be elected by carrying five of 114 counties.
If a large majority of the people live in one or a few cities, and they all share a common interest, why should a small minority with an antagonistic interest be able to force it on them?
Who said anything about a small minority? I'm talking most of the state being effectively ignored in favor of one city, simply because that city has a large population. That's why the EC was created -- to keep Virginia and New York from being the only states that matter in the original presidential elections.
Separate names with a comma.