Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Do you support the recent push by the Democratic Party to eliminate the Electoral College?

Do you support the recent push by the Democratic Party to eliminate the Electoral College?

https://amac.us/poll/do-you-support-the-recent-push-by-the-democratic-party-to-eliminate-the-elector...

 

No, this is a Constitutional protection for America’s Heartland states to ensure they have a voice in our elections rather than large cities controlling electoral decisions.
 
19,038 Votes
 
-------------------------------------------
 
Yes, I agree that the popular vote should determine the winner in our elections
 
97 Votes
 
------------------------------------------
 
It does not matter because a Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to eliminate the Electoral College and they could not get those votes.
 
366 Votes
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Not Sure
 
66 Votes
 
----------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that so many people want to keep it the way it is.  
 
0 Kudos
613 Views
37
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I think the electoral college should be eliminated or negated in other ways.

 

 

The purpose of the electoral college in context of the framers time was to prevent to popular vote from having to much power.

 

 

In context of the times that meant slavery, the heavily populated anti slave northern states would have to much power over the low population southern slave slaves states.

 

 

The example often used is Rhode Island, but in reality is was New York and Virgina.

 

 

Another reason was a basic lack of education among the small farmers that made up a large segment of the mostly agraian  population, the feeling was they were to uneducated to vote in a direct democracy.

 

 

The electoral college was and is undemocratic by design

 

 

We ended slavery in 1864, and we've had public education in the USA in all the states by 1870.

 

 

These days we have the Internet, anyone can get a self taught liberal education for the cost of a broadband connection.

 

 

It's time to end the electoral college and embrace democracy and education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
1,054 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Everyone realizes the constitution would have to be amended... right? That means 38 of the 50 states would have to agree.

Won't happen... it's essentially a dem fantasy. However I would like to see non citizens who are currently counted in the US census, not have any impact on electoral votes or congressional appointments.
https://cis.org/Impact-NonCitizens-Congressional-Apportionment

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
1,040 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

The laws apply ato everyone within our borders. The function of Government  is to provide those things an individual cannotprovide for themselves - roads,currency, courts, police and fire protection,etc. Those services must support the entire RESIDENT population, so determing how much represation based on how many people supported is the only rational way to go.

 

As for the anacronistic electoral college, it ceased having a reason for existence about the time they compelted the transcontinential railroad.

0 Kudos
1,038 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

The laws apply ato everyone within our borders. The function of Government  is to provide those things an individual cannotprovide for themselves - roads,currency, courts, police and fire protection,etc. Those services must support the entire RESIDENT population, so determing how much represation based on how many people supported is the only rational way to go.

 

As for the anacronistic electoral college, it ceased having a reason for existence about the time they compelted the transcontinential railroad.


Legal tax paying residents .... yes. I'll agree those folks need services they're paying for. 

 

As to the Electoral College.... it's still here and will remain here, well beyond our days.... guaranteed.


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
1,035 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

If that question was placed on the ballot in the next election I would vote to keep the electoral college. 

 

0 Kudos
1,064 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I support ending the Electoral College because I believe that all people's vote should have equal weight.

Honored Social Butterfly

No, I don't support the elimination fo the Electoral College.  We are a Constitutional Republic.  Without the Electoral College we would have "The Dictatorship of the Majority" which is only a few states.  I don't want a state like California determining (perhaps should say dictating) who is elected.  The world is already crazy enough.  We don't need someone who would be driven by Hollywood.  They already think they rule.  

Recognized Social Butterfly


@Soosie wrote:

No, I don't support the elimination fo the Electoral College.  We are a Constitutional Republic.  Without the Electoral College we would have "The Dictatorship of the Majority" which is only a few states.  I don't want a state like California determining (perhaps should say dictating) who is elected.  The world is already crazy enough.  We don't need someone who would be driven by Hollywood.  They already think they rule.  


So what you are saying is that you want the minority to be able to overrule the majority.  A "state like California" could not determine an election by itself, it is mathematically impossible.  What is happening right now is that some peoples votes are more powerful than others.  How is that fit in with our Democratic ideals.

Honored Social Butterfly

Yes I do support elimination of the electoral college.

 

It's original purpose was as a "bribe" to the slave states...

 

Since slavery is no longer permitted, only the dishonest and unpatriotic could ever fabricate any bogus reason for it to still exist.

 

One citizen - one vote...

 

Anything else is neither honest, honorable, nor equitable - that's why tRump, his dishonest and unpatriotic droogs and right wing criminally dishonest trash still want to keep it...

 

 

 

44>dolt45
0 Kudos
507 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I don't, actually.  If the EC were eliminated, only the populations on the two coasts would get any attention from candidates.   

Contributor

Absolutely - we have to endure two presidents who were not elected by the people.  

Honored Social Butterfly

I'm not sure an AMAC poll is reflective of all Americans...do you?

 

I wonder what a question like "Do you think every Americans vote should hold the same weight? would show....or, should a person's vote from Wyoming have far more weight than one from California?

 

Times are a changing.....

 

According to God, through Abraham Lincoln, "allow all the governed an equal voice in government”.

 

Wanna argue with God? Abe?


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
Recognized Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Anytime anybody tries to use Counties to prove some kind of statistical relevance, you know they don't have a leg to stand on.

You are trying to compare LA County with a population of over 10,000,000 with counties that are 10,000 times smaller.  How many of the smallest of your 2626 counties would it take to make 1 LA County?  I am too lazy to do the math but the populations of the 5 smallest counties are 88, 134, 296, 417 and 457.

Are you talking land area?  You are comparing San Bernardino County at 20,105 square miles with Counties with as little as 13.21 square miles.

For your point about New York, the largest County is over FIFTY times the size of the smallest (population wise).

There are no valid statistics you can come up with trying to use County as your data point.

When the Constitution was written, what was the population differences of the States? 

I guess you want your state legislature to select you Senators since that is the way it was originally done.

Can you name one other election, besides the Presidential election, where the winner of the popular vote doesn't win the election?

0 Kudos
1,094 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Thanks for the proof that some peoples votes count much more than others.

Honored Social Butterfly

Fishslayer777 posted..

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!

====================================================================

The usual cry babies on the left do not care why we have the EC.

If we did not have the EC come the next Presidential Election why would a candidate even care about a state with a small population...they would be spending all their time in the large, densely populated states and cities. When elected the Presidents would favor the same... the large, densely populated states and cities with projects...it does not take anyone with a IQ about 95 to understand that.

If Ms Clinton had won and fewer EC votes the cry babies on the left would think that the EC was the best thing since canned corn.




0 Kudos
497 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.

 

 

 

 

And Clinton still got 3M more votes than Trump because real estate doesn't vote. It doesn't matter how many counties went for Trump over Clinton. 

Regular Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.

 

 

 

 

And Clinton still got 3M more votes than Trump because real estate doesn't vote. It doesn't matter how many counties went for Trump over Clinton. 


LOL....LOL...LOL  It does matter in some counties!

0 Kudos
494 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Exactly the reason why we have an electoral college and why the overcrowded cities shouldn't dictate the "rules" for our country. They also want to increase the number of judges on the Supreme Court.

Honored Social Butterfly

Exactly the reason why we have an electoral college and why the overcrowded cities shouldn't dictate the "rules" for our country. 

 

That's a big reason I'm reluctant to support abolishing the electoral college. Could you imagine presidential campaigns "flying over" small states without saying hello or talking to the people about the issues. Or candidates pandering to the big cities. Rent control could become a big national issue when issues like that should be left to mayors. 

 

On the other hand, as it stands today, Democrats hardly visit Red States, and Republicans give up on Blue States because of the electoral college.

Hillary did not visit Wisconsin during the 2016 election. She lost Wisconsin by less than 1%. What was that about?

 

WISCONSON

wisconsin blue state.png

 

If Congress gets together to discuss changing our electorial process it will come down to how it will effect the them in the next election. They'll be examining the election map. Blue vs Red states. It will be pure partisan politics.

 

I think it would be better for presidential candidates to support issues that benefit the majority of voters. Issues that men, women, ethnic minorities, people from big cities as well as small towns can agree on. 

 

Perhaps most important, candidates have to win over Independents, both Republican leaning and Democratic leaning, since they are the ones who really decide the elections. Popular issues is the simplest way to accomplish that. However, money influence plays a very big role against the will of the majority.

 

I'd rather see Congress focus on the influece of big donations in elections, as well as gerrymandering laws and leave the electoral college alone for now. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Fishslayer777 wrote:

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Exactly the reason why we have an electoral college and why the overcrowded cities shouldn't dictate the "rules" for our country.  So, to Cons, it's not about one person, one voice; it's about how much open land that surrounds the one person.  Hard to get equality when some demand a "self-serving" electoral system.


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly

To sum it up Donald Trump lost the general election to Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes and won the Electoral College by 74 votes

"A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinton,” nytimes.com, Dec. 19, 2016   --  THE Electoral College gives too much power to "swing states" and allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states 

 

It is my understanding that the  E C was necessary and implimented  cause women and blacks couldn't vote. Which meant in the case of the black south then the southern states were at a disadvantage.

GET rid of the archaic Electoral College when the last 12 years Gore and Ciinton should have been president which would have change the teams and we would certainly not been in war in Iraq and now had an unquaified president giving us a unqualified team.  

 

 

Regular Social Butterfly

@JANMB  Great points.  Gee, just got to love the only "two parties" theories, no? Got to put everyone into a box and take away the individual?!


@JANMB wrote:

To sum it up Donald Trump lost the general election to Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes and won the Electoral College by 74 votes

"A Historic Number of Electors Defected, and Most Were Supposed to Vote for Clinton,” nytimes.com, Dec. 19, 2016   --  THE Electoral College gives too much power to "swing states" and allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states 

 

It is my understanding that the  E C was necessary and implimented  cause women and blacks couldn't vote. Which meant in the case of the black south then the southern states were at a disadvantage.

GET rid of the archaic Electoral College when the last 12 years Gore and Ciinton should have been president which would have change the teams and we would certainly not been in war in Iraq and now had an unquaified president giving us a unqualified team.  

 

 


 

0 Kudos
481 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Fishslayer777 wrote:

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Exactly the reason why we have an electoral college and why the overcrowded cities shouldn't dictate the "rules" for our country.  So, to Cons, it's not about one person, one voice; it's about how much open land that surrounds the one person.  Hard to get equality when some demand a "self-serving" electoral system.


 


It's certainly NOT having the East and West Coasts dictate the rules for the vast country in between or to put it another way, it isn't having the people that live in 1% of the acreage of the U.S.A. dictate how the people that live in the 99% of the acreage in the U.S.A. live! As a liberal, I don't expect you to agree!

0 Kudos
575 Views
12
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Fishslayer777 wrote:

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Exactly the reason why we have an electoral college and why the overcrowded cities shouldn't dictate the "rules" for our country.  So, to Cons, it's not about one person, one voice; it's about how much open land that surrounds the one person.  Hard to get equality when some demand a "self-serving" electoral system.


 


It's certainly NOT having the East and West Coasts dictate the rules for the vast country in between or to put it another way, it isn't having the people that live in 1% of the acreage of the U.S.A. dictate how the people that live in the 99% of the acreage in the U.S.A. live! As a liberal, I don't expect you to agree!


In a Democracy "acreage" shouldn't elect a president, the majority of individual votes in our country should. As a trump supporter, I don't expect you to agree !

 

If the "East and West Coasts" were Conservative, you wouldn't mind them electing our president.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
479 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Fishslayer777 wrote:

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class, and want to put a stop to the electoral college...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes thanTrump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

Dems lost and now they want to change the rules. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION!


Exactly the reason why we have an electoral college and why the overcrowded cities shouldn't dictate the "rules" for our country.  So, to Cons, it's not about one person, one voice; it's about how much open land that surrounds the one person.  Hard to get equality when some demand a "self-serving" electoral system.


 


It's certainly NOT having the East and West Coasts dictate the rules Coasts don't vote....people vote.  Why should it matter where those voting people live in a presidential election?  Save it for their state and local elections....  Seems like the Gulf Coast is OK though.....for the vast country in between or to put it another way, it isn't having the people that live in 1% of the acreage of the U.S.A. dictate how the people that live in the 99% of the acreage in the U.S.A. live! In a NATIONAL election, acreage shouldn't matter....it's about equality, right.  A llama farmer in Wyoming's vote is more important than an accpuntant's vote in LA?  Only to a Con.  Again, save it for state and local elections; that makes sense.  As a liberal, Now you claim to be a liberal?  LMAO


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly

If you understand we are a (democratic) Republic, then you know why we have the electoral college. History is important and relevant. If you want the elites to run our country, and minority groups underrepresented then you want a democracy and we'd be ruled by simple majority controlled by the few.

Remember back in the day... an example of a minority group were farmers, ranchers, immigrants. They worked outside of the cities and were subject to the rules of the elites. Our whole developing nation was a minority to England. We were outside of London and the ruling class and we had taxation without representation.

Representation is the key and if the dems had their way, London would be reincarnated and rule once more.

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
Silver Conversationalist

I think people are confusing the rationale for the electoral college with that for having 2 - count 'em, 2! - Senators for each state, no matter how large or how small.

 

The issue of big city slickers overwhelming the good folks in the small towns is addressed by having the Representatives of the districts, based on population. But then each state gets 2 Senators. So, tiny Rhode Island gets the same number of Senators as do New York, California, Florida, and Texas (etc).

 

Note that Rhode Island has a bit over 1 million population. Houston, Texas alone has more than double that population and yet Texas still gets only 2 Senators. Of course, each state has a different number of Representatives.

 

Still, though, it seems to me that these days the states with small populations but still get 2 Senators are now holding many millions of people "hostage". Maybe the time has come to get rid of 2 Senators per state rather than removing the electoral college.

 

The electoral college allows the small states some further leverage by using their Senators. From description of the electoral college at History.com:

 

" It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."

 

Again, we have a small group of people holding hostage many millions in the large urban areas.

 

There is the phenomena that rural residents have been heading to the cities for a long time. Farming requires fewer workers, so the younger people move on for opportunities. In the extreme process this will end with fewer and fewer people in small states holding hostage the large urban areas. I am thinking this is becoming unfair. I doubt that the founding fathers had  any idea of the population size that urban areas would become.

Honored Social Butterfly


@fffred wrote:

I think people are confusing the rationale for the electoral college with that for having 2 - count 'em, 2! - Senators for each state, no matter how large or how small.

 

The issue of big city slickers overwhelming the good folks in the small towns is addressed by having the Representatives of the districts, based on population. But then each state gets 2 Senators. So, tiny Rhode Island gets the same number of Senators as do New York, California, Florida, and Texas (etc).

 

Note that Rhode Island has a bit over 1 million population. Houston, Texas alone has more than double that population and yet Texas still gets only 2 Senators. Of course, each state has a different number of Representatives.

 

Still, though, it seems to me that these days the states with small populations but still get 2 Senators are now holding many millions of people "hostage". Maybe the time has come to get rid of 2 Senators per state rather than removing the electoral college.

 

The electoral college allows the small states some further leverage by using their Senators. From description of the electoral college at History.com:

 

" It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."

 

Again, we have a small group of people holding hostage many millions in the large urban areas.

 

There is the phenomena that rural residents have been heading to the cities for a long time. Farming requires fewer workers, so the younger people move on for opportunities. In the extreme process this will end with fewer and fewer people in small states holding hostage the large urban areas. I am thinking this is becoming unfair. I doubt that the founding fathers had  any idea of the population size that urban areas would become.


Even the House of Representatives favors the smaller states since they get at least one Representative regardless of how few people they have. Each Wyoming Representative represents 569,125 residents while each Texas Representative represents 808,446 residents.

0 Kudos
477 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png