[Fact Bomb] Electoral College: Invented to Protect Slavery, Is Stupid, Is Broadly Opposed

The idea, which I have heard multiple times on various media, is that the vote from the populations of those cities (the biggest cities) would overwhelm all other votes from all other areas, if there were no electoral college, and just a direct popular vote.

So, in effect, the votes from New Hampshire or Idaho or South Carolina would not matter any more.

Somewhere on social media, I saw a map that showed that LA by itself would overwhelm most of the rest of the country. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit -- here it is:



https://patriotpost.us/articles/61560-demo-controlled-states-plan-electoral-college-subversion

 

You need 120 ******* cities to get to the population of an electoral majority, that's assuming 100% participation and so it's more like 240 cities voting for the same candidate, which won't happen so it's more like 480; but of course as population goes down you need more cities so it could easily be 720 - 1000 to get to 70 - 75 million voting for the same candidate. Campaign stops and ad buys may align more closely along metropolitan areas or even more starkly along well-tailored demographics like income or profession, but they won't be dominated by whatever multi-ethnic cities you're pretending aren't the "real America."

 

1) Cursing never helps anyone's arguments

2) where did I opine on what is the "real America" and what is not? I think I offered no such opinion.

Oh, and see the map I posted above.

 

Well, if I am understanding you, it's the 1 = 1 premise that people object to. That's how small states lose their votes. (Or, their votes don't matter)

If, hypothetically, the cities of NYC, Chicago, and LA have 60 million people, and South Carolina has 10 million people; and those big cities all vote blue and SC votes red, then, arguably, the people from SC didn't need to vote anyway--their votes simply don't matter.

If I am understanding you, you are correct in one sense -- you just want to simply tally up all the individual votes; the winner gets the WH.

But that's what a lot of states object to. You are essentially "wiping out" statehood in such a model.

Yes, in an electoral college, small states get more electoral votes than perhaps they deserve. That is, the simplicity of giving NH (say) 10 electoral votes gives it an bigger influence that it would have on popular vote alone.

It gets down to this: is there any value to statehood, or should we just be considered one political entity, bordered by Canada and Mexico and the oceans? Or, are states in fact their own political entities because they do want to be different than other states?

For example, look at the laws on certain (cough, cough) substances. Some states say "Ok." Other states say "nay." Clearly, then, there are differences among the states; and they should be separate political entities.

A popular vote in the presidential election would in essence wipe out the states. Many people like the idea for this reason. Many people hate the idea for this reason.

Myself, I see the value in states being allowed to be different, and having their own voices, policies, and yes, electoral votes.

 

This is true, I suppose, if you completely ignore the Legislative Branch and all State governments.

 

Los Angeles has slightly less than four million people, more than half the states in the country and probably 3/4 of the states in this map each individually have more than that.

 

LA city has ~4 million people, LA county (which his map is based on) has ~8 million and is indeed more populous than all but about 8-10 states.

 

Since the thread is prefaced [Fact Bomb] I thought I would correct the other poster with some facts.

I didn't say anything about voting or the EC or anything else. Calm your t***.

 

I don't see any references to Los Angeles County. I see an illustration that might highlight the county because it's harder to clearly do so with the city. The broader point is ridiculous as the implication is that L.A. itself would be more electorally powerful than these states and that voters in these states would be precluded from aligning together in a popular vote.

 

C'mon Sam. You can't avoid it forever. The truth will set you free.

 

Dont care either way.

Harden with 61!!!

Hell yeah

 

Aye, Sam. Get a load of this. Turns out them boys in New York was still holdin' on to their slaves way after the Constitution was ratified.

 

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college

 

Which would effectively eradicate states as political entities in presidential elections. Which is apparently Ok with you.

I would just say be careful what you wish for...…there's always the law of unintended consequences.

 

Well yes, I guess I was thinking about presidential elections. Isn't that why this is being talked about? Due to the presidential election of 2016? And maybe that of 2000?