No other democracies in the world are seeking their own version of the Electoral College. They should be given your above argument. This was not meant to change your opinion, just to give you pause. Democracy is a messy business. We all should want a better system and accept it when it comes.
Honestly it needs to be looked at. If Texas is indeed turning blue and the democrats can lock up California, NY, and Texas I imagine a lot of conservatives would start feeling a different way about the electoral college. Everyone complains about it when their side loses, but the winner gets to take the smug side of things and goes "Them's the breaks. Ah well." it's like NFL officiating. Everyone knows it's a problem, but the winning side just gets to excuse it away by saying "Well, the game was tied when they missed that call..."
Well that also didn't give him the result he wanted, so he probably thinks that should be based on the popular vote of the entire country too. Basically any way he can get the result he wants regardless of what needs to be done in order to get it.
No. To me the Senate is what ensures that smaller states get representation. Electoral college is basically a doubling of the effect.
It ensures representation in the legislative branch, the electoral college ensures representation in the executive branch. Having representation in the legislative and executive branches ensures representation in the judicial branch.
The senate (in which Wyoming and California have exactly equal representation) ensures representation in the judicial branch. As we see by the lack of confirmation on Garland.
Yeah but like I said, having representation in the executive is also important. Both Wyoming and California had a say over the last president just like they did over this new president. That's why the system is as fair as possible. The small states are still at a great disadvantage, but with the electoral college it's still possible to overrule the few densely populated states with enough opposition. The crying about the system is 100% just sour grapes about certain people not getting their way. It's a short sighted temper tantrum.
True about the temper tantrum. However I'm sure the republicans On the coast and democrats in the middle of the country would like their vote to count in a presidential election.
It does count. Their vote still counts even if they are in the minority. Hell states like Michigan and Pennsylvania were solid Democratic owned states in presidential elections since 1988....not this year. In any particular race any state can swing from one party to another. Hell it wasn't THAT long ago that we had one candidate win 49 states.....and the one he lost, he lost by less than 4000 votes. Just because your opinion isn't popular in your state for one election doesn't mean your vote didn't count, it just means you didn't win that time. You are still much better served with an electoral college system than in a raw popular vote.
I'm glad with agree on the facts. When the states had all of the power in the political equation, they elected their own officials via one citizen, one vote. When the states had all of the power in the political equation, they elected the president via the Electoral College which favored the states's interest more so than the citizens's. One citizen, one vote is a pretty fundamental democratic principle. At the start of the country, the most powerful officials were elected this way. Now that the power has shifted from the states to the federal government, the leading official of our government is no longer a figurehead but has real substantial power. We changed the power structure of our government without changing how the new power is representative of the people. If we had a national referendum on the Electoral College, two thirds of the people would vote it down. The will of the people should mean something, especially in a democracy. BTW states are completely arbitrary demarcations. Seven states have so little populace that they have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. If all states were allowed to split themselves down to the Congressional districts (or some such), the Electoral College might make some sort of sense. Project much?
The presidential candidate is the only thing on the ballot that you don't vote directly for. Every other governor, bond, issue, judge, etc. your vote goes toward the score that is used to decide that item. Not only that, your vote has the same weight as everyone else voting for that position/issue. Whereas in presidential elections the weight of a vote is very much unequal. I have no issue with a candidate losing, I have an issue with my vote not directly going to the tally used to elect the president. The Senate is an appropriate insurance for small states representation alone. The president should represent all people equally. One person own vote. Also I think folks would be surprised about where candidates would campaign if every single vote counted. It wouldn't just be in lots Angeles county.
Facts that have nothing to do with what we are talking about, but sure. We probably also agree that water is wet, that ice is cold, and that the Dallas Mavericks suck. In State elections, sure. The votes of people in Georgia never mattered to those in Virginia in state elections though. No mater who had "the power" the country has always elected the president via the electoral college because that was always the most fair way to do elections when it comes to the interests of the citizens of every state. In every election, you are only supposed to vote once, so yeah, in a sense, one citizen one vote. No one is arguing that any different system be used. The argument is that you think the votes of those in densely populated areas of the country should be the only votes that matter and I disagree.....as did those who founded this government. Sure, there have been a series of unchecked power grabs by the executive branch....still not seeing a point though. No, not really. it's still structured exactly the same. 3 co-equal branches, the executive grabbing some extra power along the way hasn't really changed that, he's still checked by the other 2....and yeah, we haven't changed the way the executive is elected due to already using the most fair system. I'm not sure that's true, and even if it were true, it's irrelevant. That's not how you change policy in this country. Again, a basic course in US Government would teach you these things. The United States is not a Democracy, they are a Representative Republic.....again that basic US Government course would really do you a world of good here. So really, all you've done here is show that you have no respect whatsoever for the states that make up the United States....you know, the bodies that are supposed to do everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. You've also showed that you have an infantile understanding of how the US government works, and why it is set up that way. Again, I get that you are upset that your candidate lost, but getting embarrassed in these kinds of conversations isn't helping your cause.
Well, in some ways you do vote directly for them. You are voting for them to get the electoral votes from your state. That's what you are voting for. Just because they focus on the candidates those unnamed electors would vote for doesn't change that. When you vote for a Senator, you aren't directly voting for control of congress, it's just something you'll get if enough others agree with you. I do agree that the president should represent all the people equally.....and the only way to ensure that is with the electoral college. Otherwise we'd have a system where we just had 20 states elect the president over the will of 30 states worth of people who disagree. You'd be saying that only super populous states really count. The electoral college gives those small states just a little bit of power and you'd take that away from them so that they don't get a say. So that the president wouldn't have to represent them.
All of the votes are equal regardless of where you live. Just like that of a state election, city election, or congressional district. So the person elected is meant to serve the majority/plurality of voters in said election. That is not necessarily the case with the electoral college. The states have power through the senate. This should be about voter power not state power. If more people gather in Chicago rather than Sioux City for job opportunity or whatever, why should their vote be worth less as a result?
You must be a grade A idiot if you're still repeating this after the election. Live and learn, people. Texas is far from "turning blue"!
Again though, the argument here is that someone who won the majority of 30 states shouldn't be the president simply because they got a ton of votes in California.....that's really what the argument is. It's an argument that a few densely populated areas are more important than the rest of the country. Now I get thinking that if you are merely upset about your candidate losing and you aren't thinking things through very well....I mean, it happens, but if you put any serious thought into it you realize why we have the electoral college and you realize that it's a good thing.
Bolded part is your opinion and not a fact. As I mentioned above, states are arbitrary constructs. You got it bass ackwards. You think that the votes of those in the least densely populated areas of the country should be the only votes that matter. I think: one citizen, one vote. No more, no less. Again with the insults. BTW you need to work on your mind reading skills. I voted against Trump (probably for the same reasons you did). I have never been a fan of the Electoral College. This is not a sudden, politically motivated "epiphany". Why the US government was set up that it was is separate discussion. I will make one point. The founding fathers did not get everything right from the get go. As an example, they punted on the whole issue of slavery, which without a doubt was a disastrous ****up. Claiming the founding fathers were geniuses to implement the Electoral College and to punt on slavery is a non-starter. An argument could even be made that slavery drove the decision to have the Electoral College in the first place. The Constitution was made to be amended. The country barely got out of the starting gate before 10 amendments were added. Since then many amendments have been added and even one "repealed". I would like to see an amendment that would replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. If the elected officials follow the will of 2/3 of the people, I will get my wish.
It counts less. If you take the number of electoral votes and divide it by the number of register voters in NY it is less that that same calculation in Wyoming. This is in fact the purpose of the EC. I see the point that those in favor of a straight popular vote make - this isn't 1776 when states were more like countries - today we identify as Americans. And I don't think presidents will not visit states because of this. It would open up the country so that the entire country feels their vote matters. But again that's not our system and it won't change because it benefits one side more than the other.
You must be a grade A idiot if you don't know what 'turning' means. If a noted conservative like George Will can worry about the shifting demographics and changing politics then yes, Texas can indeed turn blue. I know your counter "California and New York could turn red then!" yes, that would be true...except that we've seen it slowly trending blue. Hell, Clinton had Texas going for her with more than 50% of the vote in. The other blue bricks like California or NY has shown no signs of changing, Texas has. Where there is smoke texxy, there is fire.
Well it's more than just my opinion, it's the opinion of the United States government and has been since the beginning. In fact, your disagreement has more to do with you not liking that your candidate lost an election. It's not like you have some well thought out dissenting opinion. SMH, sure, so are countries. So are laws. So are a lot of things, it doesn't mean you shouldn't respect those things. 18 is an arbitrary age of consent, doesn't mean you should start nailing 12 year old children. I'm sure you think that, however, the fact that you are literally arguing against the very foundation of the government of the United States kind of suggests you are the one that is "bass ackwards".....not to mention the fact that you don't seem to understand enough about the electoral college to realize that those in more populous states still have a huge advantage over the smaller states. Seriously, it's like I'm arguing with a child but based on the date you joined CF, I know that can't be the case. This makes me sad. They are not insults, they are accurate descriptions of your level of comprehension when it comes to the government of the United States. Fair enough, then you've been wrong for a long time. My apologies. I never suggested that they got "everything" right, but one thing they absolutely did get right was the electoral college. No, slavery had nothing to do with the founding of the electoral college, and trying to tie the two together is hopefully (though I can't be sure) disingenuous on your part. No matter what, less populous states would want to have a say and not have everything dictated to them by the few states with large populations. That was the reason they created it, and that's the reason it's still a valid institution. Again, your argument here is that it's more "fair" if the person who won the majority of 20 states be president over the candidate who won 30.....I mean, you realize that right? You are arguing that the top 15 metro areas should determine literally every president for the rest of the country and everyone else should have to just deal with it. The mindset that only a few states should matter, or maybe in your case that none of the states should matter and only a dozen or so cities should matter is a dangerous one. Fortunately there's no chance the system will change due to the Representative Republic system of government over your favored mob rule. Those we elect know better than to scrap the system even if you are right about 2/3 of the unwashed masses being against it. Absolutely the constitution was made to be amended, and the system set up to amend it would require those states to vote for having no voice in presidential elections.....if you really think that's going to happen.....well you can't be helped. I truly hope I don't have to spell out to you why that would never happen but I'll give you a hint, you can't do so with only the votes of a few large cities.
