P
ProVobis
Guest
50 more million without a voice in government probably but I’m no sociologist.
Not a matter of controlling but having a voice.
- Status
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Yeah, that’s it. The left just doesn’t have a voice. If only they could be heard, had some sort of influence or power, if only they were able to influence the country in a way the smaller states couldn’t to impose their will…50 more million without a voice in government probably but I’m no sociologist.
Not a matter of controlling but having a voice.
Ha! Who am I kidding? That would never happen…
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
“Voting” is controlling.50 more million without a voice in government probably but I’m no sociologist.
Not a matter of controlling but having a voice.
I have no idea what it means: " … having a voice ".
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know what the answer is. Operate with two consuls, such as the older Roman Empire had? After all they had three branches of government, two parties, a Senate, a Cabinet, etc.
And just think, the fraud could thwart the crook and vice versa.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
M
Michael68
Guest
This is why we have the electoral college. To keep CA and NY from imposing their will on the other 48 states!Or you could look at it as the majority of Americans deciding who will be president.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Pretty basic stuff
Mary_Gail_36
New member
The current electoral college actually cancels out any republican votes from New York or California.
This past election, it did not matter if I voted for Trump, or for Clinton, or voted for a third party or voted for a write in. I could have voted for the duck from the children’s story “Duck for President” and it would have been the same result. Clinton received all the electoral votes from my state, by a significant margin.
My vote for president didn’t count.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
It never mattered when I lived in NY, either.
My vote mattered in OH. And Trump winning OH was significant (as were his wins in the other Rust Belt states).
B
Brendan
Guest
Exactly. And that is why we have an Electoral College. The issues brought forth by the working classes of the Midwest would have been totally ignored by the voters of NY and CA.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I think both methods have their issues. Election strategy will differ based on how the President is selected. The one thing we know is that the republicans certainly are not going to change things after this election. Perhaps if things were reversed, some might make an argument for changing things.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Which brings us back to NY and CA give all the electoral votes to the Democrats, and anyone who is not a democrat gets no voice. 40% of New York State voters isn’t a small number of voters.
K
KS_Housewife
Guest
We had FIFTY popular votes this November, one in each state. The electoral college preserves the voice of each state.The electoral college protects everyone from the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority. If the electoral college, which is composed of representatives from each state’s popular vote, were abolished, then the voices of only the most populous regions of the country would be heard. Each state brings something of value to the nation’s table. We live in the United STATES of America, not the United Collection of a Large Group of People on the North American Continent. Attempts to eliminate the electoral college foster a large central government at the expense of the concept, existence and proper role of the states. As a resident of a less populous state, I appreciate the electoral college.
J
jtav
Guest
A distaste for the EC is one of the things me and my Trump-voting dad agree on and something I actually got from him growing up. We found it elitist, undemocratic, and dispiriting since we live in a safe state. That it happened to work in his favor was immaterial–he still thinks it’s wrong.
I propose a compromise: electors are allocated according to the percentage of popular vote in a state the candidate won, with victory requiring a simple plurality. So the conservatives on NY and liberals of TX count without one party being able to depend only on one region.
I propose a compromise: electors are allocated according to the percentage of popular vote in a state the candidate won, with victory requiring a simple plurality. So the conservatives on NY and liberals of TX count without one party being able to depend only on one region.
X
Xystus
Guest
Nothing is stopping your state, or any state, from awarding their electoral votes in that way. The Constitution does not specify “winner take all” with the electoral college. There are a couple states that are not “winner take all”.
M
Michael68
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is the Senate that protects the rights of the less populous states, not the electoral college. Your less populous state has proportionately fewer votes in the electoral college. Your preferences can still take a back seat to those of the larger population, the same as with a national popular vote. The electoral college just gives you the appearance of more relevance without the reality.
Actually there is little difference between the representation in the popular vote and the EC, other than the fact that the EC encourages widening polarization.
M
Michael68
Guest
How insensitive to say anyone or area is irrelevant!!! This is the type of thinking that was totally rejected!!! We are just as relevant as population centers in CA and NY!!! Why this is even a debate is scary!!!
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I was obviously speaking of a mathematical truth, not making a moral judgement. Is it “insensitive” to say that 270 < 300?How insensitive to say anyone or area is irrelevant!!! This is the type of thinking that was totally rejected!!! We are just as relevant as population centers in CA and NY!!! Why this is even a debate is scary!!!
L
LiamQ
Guest
The electoral college gives voters in smaller states more of a “per capita” share in each electoral vote than it does in larger states. So while there might be “little” difference, however one chooses to define that, there is nonetheless a difference. And that difference happens to give smaller states more of a voice than they would otherwise have.
Let’s look at West Virginia, which has something like 1,254,525 registered voters and 5 electors, giving that state an elector-to-voter ratio of 1 to 250,905.
Compare this to California, which has more than 18,200,000 registered voters (more than the entire population of 46 states) and 55 electors, giving that state an elector-to-voter ratio of something like 1 to 330,909. (I couldn’t find more precise stats.)
So while West Virginia has 11 times fewer electors than California, this is an improvement over the 14.5 times fewer voters they happen to have. And each voice has more of an impact on which set of electors happens to be chosen by that state.
But the greater impact of the electoral college is probably best understood by this very election. As of the vote counts of a few days ago, Donald Trump won an overall simple majority in no fewer than a combined 99.968% of all US counties and county-equivalents. One hundred percent of Clinton’s popular vote majority came from the majority she acquired in Los Angeles county.
Without the electoral college, Clinton would have won by 1.2 million votes. But with it, which takes into consideration the “little difference” of geographic vote distribution, she lost.
Also, let’s not forget that swing states change. The aforementioned West Virginia, with its “little difference” in advantage given its electors, actually was incredibly important in the 2000 election. Bush flipped WV from blue to red, which made the Florida vote that much more important. Had he not done so, Bush could have won Florida and still lost. And I believe that no fewer than 48 states have determined the President, something that probably would never be possible without the electoral college.
- Status