P
- Status
Not that it matters, because it doesn’t. We don’t elect presidents on the basis of a national plebiscite, nor should we.
However, it is a testament to the vibrancy and durability of the American republican system. Close to a total of 150 million votes cast in the elections of the states for electors is, indeed, remarkable.
Something to celebrate.
However, it is a testament to the vibrancy and durability of the American republican system. Close to a total of 150 million votes cast in the elections of the states for electors is, indeed, remarkable.
Something to celebrate.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
It’s like blockbuster movies taking in more money than Gone with the Wind or some other movie. Of course they did! There are more people paying exorbitant prices nowadays.
Same with voting. Our population keeps growing, so, more voters. I am glad more people participated this time.
Same with voting. Our population keeps growing, so, more voters. I am glad more people participated this time.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
I disagree. There are many virtues in that “one person, one vote” stuff. Everyone’s vote should count the same. The electoral college had its roots in support of slavery.
People in small states feel aggrieved? Well, their economy is basically subsidized by other areas. Or, do they think they pay the rack rate for electricity and high speed internet?
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m torn on this issue of the electorate. We had a ballot question about eliminating it in Colorado and I voted against it. But, I’m torn. I think the electorate that we have today weighs the small states too heavily but instead, I think it the electoral college needs to be revamped. I remember in civics class years ago that the electorate is the last bastion of checks and balances to protect someone insane or totally corrupt from gaining office. With the instant news and millions of people now voting, perhaps that’s no longer necessary but on the other hand (can you tell I was Jewish?) I was a Democrat living in Wyoming for years. My vote never meant anything. That state has been 100% Republican forever. Everyone’s vote should matter!
I realize the issue with someone living in a state with a dominate city that always determines the vote. While it doesn’t seem fair, it also doesn’t seem wrong!
S
StudentMI
Guest
We could also decentralize power so that the domination of the cities isn’t an issue.
P
Pattylt
Guest
How would that be done? Sorry, I’m kind of clueless on solutions…
S
StudentMI
Guest
I have no idea. I just read the book Human Scale Revisited by Kirkpatrick Sale and it’s very eye opening. Highly recommended.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Does it offer ideas for solutions?
S
StudentMI
Guest
It offers some. It’s mostly theory but well worth reading.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thanks…I’ll add it my wish list. I’m currently slogging my way through a NT scholars book that set me back $60.
S
StudentMI
Guest
I got a textbook on foundational logic for $19 a couple days ago.Thanks…I’ll add it my wish list. I’m currently slogging my way through a NT scholars book that set me back $60.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I just wish listed this book for Kindles at ~18$…That’s do able!
I agree. No one is disparaging the concept.
It does. In my state, no one’s vote counted more or less than anyone else’s. I’m sure it was the same where you live.
No, it doesn’t, unless you have quotes from the constitutional convention about it. In fact, the 3/5 compromise, as despicable as it was, actually reduced the electoral power of the slave states. The southern states wanted them counted as full people for electoral purposes.
Aggrieved? No. They just want their states properly represented.
Then advocate for the return of strict limits in federal power as set forth in the constitution.
See above.
Your vote counted exactly the same as every other voter in your state. The electors were determined by a democratic vote within your state.
It isn’t wrong. It’s absolutely fair. The task before someone in that situation is to convince others to change their minds and votes. Trump won Florida because in increased the percentage of Hispanics and blacks in that state to vote for him. If he had done more of that in places like Philly, he might have won.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m not familiar with this term…could you explain it? Thanks.
I understand your point otherwise but I always felt like my vote was meaningless in Wyoming. Luckily, we had some darn good Republicans in charge…and a couple of wonks!
. But, it became a hopeless endeavor to even get them to listen to the small Democrat party there. It’s completely entrenched. @Peeps has the same problem from a different direction in Illinois…Chicago determines the state vote every year. We need some kind of reorg if we want to keep the electorate…I’m just not sure what that would be. Otherwise, I think eliminating it will happen and I’d rather keep some type of electorate than lose it entirely!It’s called spell correct.
. I fixed it.Sorry.
When I first went to Texas in 1972, every statewide office was held by Democrats except Senator Tower. California, in the other hand, was solid Republican. Georgia right now is a swing state - all of a sudden. West Virginia used to be solid blue.I understand your point otherwise but I always felt like my vote was meaningless in Wyoming. Luckily, we had some darn good Republicans in charge…and a couple of wonks!
The call for elimination of the electoral college would simply exacerbate the problem you describe. Now, that’s not the reason to keep the EC. The reason to keep the EC is because we are a federal republic. We call them states, not provinces, for a reason. The constitution was designed and created by the states. Of the three tools the states had to control the general government, one is already gone (selection of senators). The electoral college and article 5 must be preserved to preserve the federal nature of the republic.
Y
YADA
Guest
Actually, the counting of slaves as less than one was a method to limit the political power of the South in Congress [which did influence the number of electors and the taxes paid to the federal government from the states]. Like women at that time, slaves did not have a direct vote but were counted in the census. There was much disagreement on the issue of slavery at our founding. In the end the founders decided and compromised on the issue of slavery in order to concentrate on founding a nation that had aspirations if freedom and equality for all.
If they had not unified to fight for freedom from Great Britain would slavery have ended earlier? Perhaps - Perhaps not
Would the end of slavery been achieved without a very bloody and hard fought civil war? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Pure Democracy is not sustainable … they can fall to the tyranny of the majority over the minority
Last edited:
C
CradleRC58
Guest
That was my first thought.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
And, in the 20th century, southern states fought off elimination of the electoral college because they got the influence based on census numbers even though black voters were disenfranchised. In that way, the states had far more influence than would happen in a national plebiscite.
One law professor backed ‘cumulative voting’ in some areas to balance minority influence. Conservatives called Harvard law professor Lani Guinier a ‘quota queen’ and kept her from serving in the Clinton administration.
Last edited:
- Status