Documentary defends Electoral College from escalating popular-vote movement

[LeafByNiggle]

Not even. I want my vote to count at all, is the problem. If a new system was established were each individual county was worth a single point and the state would swing red or blue (or 3rd party) depending on whichever candidate takes the most candidates. This would represent the entire state better.

The mistake here is allocating rights to square miles rather than to people. Square miles do not have rights. People do.

The popular vote should never determine the presidency. We also need to get rid of the direct election of senators.

A proposition needing proof presented as a postulate without support.

a voting system you can only access with a valid social security number (to weed out people here illegally and help cut down on all the fraud).

And invite more fraud from people voting with stolen social security numbers.

Then people could have access to their vote in the database (or however it would be stored) so that they can see their vote hasn’t been tampered with.

And thus compromise the secret ballot concept since a hacker could also access that database.

We could also just keep the electoral college, each state gets one elector, whichever candidate gets 51% of the vote in a given state,

This makes no distinction between a state being won by a hair and a state won by a landslide. That does not seem quite fair to the 49% of the people in that state whose candidate lost in the state, but is well-supported in other states.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then how is it fair that Chicago decides the state politics for the entire state when they are only a small part of the state…

Again, you are assigning rights to square miles instead of to people. Chicago is only small in square miles, not in people. People in major cities get just one vote just like people in the farms.

Actually, there is a way we could keep the electoral college and still make it fair. Assign each state the number of electors based on the representatives in congress and leave of the 2 for their senators. And then get rid of the winner-take-all rule and assign electors based on the fraction of support each candidate got in that state.

 

[SlavaIsusuChristu]

yet square miles matter. People that move away from big cities do so to get away from leftist politics and all that comes with it (violent crime, high taxes, immorality, etc). Yet they then have these things forced into their communities when next to nobody living there wants them. You might think that’s fair, I think it’s tyranny.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

yet square miles matter. People that move away from big cities do so to get away from leftist politics and all that comes with it (violent crime, high taxes, immorality, etc). Yet they then have these things forced into their communities when next to nobody living there wants them. You might think that’s fair, I think it’s tyranny.

Square miles matter, but the square miles themselves do not have rights. Only people have rights. Assigning vote to square miles is nonsense.

 

[Dovekin]

Have you looked at the cases of voter fraud you linked to?

In Illinois, only 3 of the 31 cases at whitehouse.gov were in Chicago. A lot were in Cahokia? Most were one or two ballots. Only one case had significant fraud, 100,000 ballots in Chicago in 1982 which is described as the largest case in DOJ history.

In 2016, 100k fraudulent ballots could have made a difference in the presidential election in only 6 or 7 states.

Voter fraud happens in rural areas as well as urban areas. Only huge fraud would be enough to sway an election. Fraud on individual ballots probably would not affect many elections; they would be canceled out by individual fraud on the other side.

I would be more afraid of large scale disruptions than of fraud. Pandemics, massive wildfires are more likely to affect the election, but there is no evidence that politics motivated those disruptions. (The FBI has said there is evidence antifa started fires in Oregon; I would be more afraid of Republicans starting fires in California, but I doubt that happenned)

 

[Balto1]

I want my vote to count at all, is the problem.

Your vote doesn’t get added to the vote total where you live? Weird.

 

[Balto1]

Then how is it fair that Chicago decides the state politics for the entire state when they are only a small part of the state and do not reflect the interest of everyone living in the state?

State governments don’t represent everyone living in a state, they represent the majority of people living in a state. Your complaint seems to be that there isn’t only one party people are allowed to vote for.

 

[Balto1]

yet square miles matter. People that move away from big cities do so to get away from leftist politics and all that comes with it (violent crime, high taxes, immorality, etc).

Huh, I thought you said big cities control everything. How does moving away from big cities escape “leftist” politics? Your vote must “matter” locally in that case.

Your problem isn’t your vote not counting, your problem is your politics don’t appeal to enough people.

 

[RhodesianSon]

State governments don’t represent everyone living in a state, they represent the majority of people living in a state.

That’s basically how democracy works regardless of where it’s being implemented. Democracy by definition only represents the majority. Limiting the power of government in theory protects the minority from the majority. In theory.

 

[JonNC]

A proposition needing proof presented as a postulate without support.

The constitution, created by the states for the purpose of the federal republic, provided the states three checks on the general government.
The selection of senators, the electoral college, and article 5. One was removed by progressives already, in their quest for strong central government at the expense of individual. It is important the other two remain.
It also provides for protection of small population states by giving each state two senators. That needs to be protected as well.

 

[JonNC]

That’s basically how democracy works regardless of where it’s being implemented. Democracy by definition only represents the majority. Limiting the power of government in theory protects the minority from the majority. In theory.

“Democracy is the right of the people to choose their own tyrant”. -Madison