D
dvdjs
Guest
The current system does award electoral votes to candidates who do not win majorities.
DJT did not win a majority in MI, PA, FL, AZ, WI, NC, but was awarded all of their electoral votes .
- Status
DJT did not win a majority in MI, PA, FL, AZ, WI, NC, but was awarded all of their electoral votes .
D
dvdjs
Guest
The Constitution need not be ignored; it includes a process for amendment.
The problem with the current system that some see is that the weight of a given voter’s vote varies widely - arguably too widely from one state to another. This balance can be fixed without ignoring limits on central government and individual rights. Indeed balancing the weight of individual votes more equally is more consistent with respect for the rights of individuals.
C
commenter
Guest
In many parts of the US, districts for the House of Representatives, state and local races, are drawn in such a way as to ensure some African American representation. The Electoral College functions in a similar way, to ensure other kinds of minorities have genuine (name removed by moderator)ut.
The media is far more concentrated than it used to be, both in the sense of corporate ownership, in the sense that 80% of it is controlled by - or perhaps controls - one political party - and in the geographic sense, that it is heavily centered in NY City and Los Angeles.
The media ensures that the views of NY City and LA are promulgated throughout the US, and heavily impacts the elections. In effect, NYC and LA get “extra votes”. The Electoral College, to a limited extent, balances that out, it is a kind of equalizer. That is why the media is the biggest opponent of the EC.
If anyone talks about breaking up the Electoral College, let them agree to legislation that would break up Time Warner into 20, or 200, independent corporations; enforce a rule that no corporation could own more than one TV or radio station. That no cable company could own any TV station, newspaper, or movie studio; that would end monopoly practices by companies such as Amazon, etc, and enforce anti trust legislation to prevent mergers by publishers, magazines, etc.
The media is far more concentrated than it used to be, both in the sense of corporate ownership, in the sense that 80% of it is controlled by - or perhaps controls - one political party - and in the geographic sense, that it is heavily centered in NY City and Los Angeles.
The media ensures that the views of NY City and LA are promulgated throughout the US, and heavily impacts the elections. In effect, NYC and LA get “extra votes”. The Electoral College, to a limited extent, balances that out, it is a kind of equalizer. That is why the media is the biggest opponent of the EC.
If anyone talks about breaking up the Electoral College, let them agree to legislation that would break up Time Warner into 20, or 200, independent corporations; enforce a rule that no corporation could own more than one TV or radio station. That no cable company could own any TV station, newspaper, or movie studio; that would end monopoly practices by companies such as Amazon, etc, and enforce anti trust legislation to prevent mergers by publishers, magazines, etc.
E
exnihilo
Guest
This is why the Electoral College is indeed a vestige of the past. It was from a time when we had a federation. The states were actually sovereign. Now we have a unary government which grants some small local autonomy. I prefer the old federation but there is no going back at this point.
C
commenter
Guest
To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, if you make a mistake in arithmetic, it does no good to keep pushing on. That mistake will always make you wrong. You have to go back, find your mistake, and correct it. Then move on.
G
gilliam
Guest
It all depends on if you want California (primarily LA and the Bay Area), New York City and Chicago to dictate who will be president. If you are comfortable with that, then you would be in favor of electing the president by popular vote. If not, then you are not.
Personally, I am not comfortable with putting my future in their hands.
Personally, I am not comfortable with putting my future in their hands.
P
phil19034
Guest
The winner takes all method in the electoral college actually is beneficial to the Republicans.
If every state applied their electoral votes the same way Maine and Nebraska does, then Romney would have won the 2012 election.
The Democrats would never support the Maine/Nebraska method across all states
P
phil19034
Guest
Not just them, but basically it would become urban vs rural elections and the rural life would be 100% ignored
P
phil19034
Guest
No. We are still a federation, we are NOT a unitary state. Yes, the federal govt has been trying to take powers away (because since the New Deal, the Democrats are very pro unitary state, pro big federal govt and they have inherited all of the “federalist” sentiments from the late 18th century.
We are still 100% a federation because everything not discussed in the constitution is the domain of the states. Some of the powers the federal govt has been given, the states can take a way if they decide to.
Also, the states can call a for a constitutional admendment without Congress and only the states can call for a Constitutional Convention.
So the true power does reside with the states. The federal govt can only “force” it’s social and domestic agenda by blackmail by witholding federal grants.
Point is, we are still a federation because the states the the LEGAL right and power to reign in the Federal govt even if the states choose not to do so.
But in a unitary state, the local govts have zero rights or legal power and the central govt can close those local govts if it wishes.
G
gilliam
Guest
The states have never called for a constitutional convention. Power is only real if it is used. We learned that from the Roman Republic.
G
gilliam
Guest
I agree with you. California is a good example of what can happen. The coastal cities there dictate to the inland rural communities how much utilities will cost and taxes will be levied. Ask any rural community in California how they like the deal.
I stand corrected. He won a plurality
P
ProVobis
Guest
There we go with the labeling again.
I seem to recall after the last election how the Romney supporters wanted to divvy up the EV in certain states in spite of losing the popular vote by 4%.
P
ProVobis
Guest
To me this is like counting how many innings you scored in rather than the total runs.
P
ProVobis
Guest
We are also supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. But a voter in North Dakota has more voting power in determining who will execute those laws than a voter in California? Doesn’t make sense.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good point.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Well, it’s not like they shouldn’t count at all. Trump himself builds on the very infrastructure which depends on government spending which the Republicans detest. In fact the Trump name is hard to miss in downtown Chicago.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Generally though the rural area is less dependent on the government. But if their homes burn, for example, they would have wait several hours for help. Most people would not want this.
D
dvdjs
Guest
So, are you insistent on a winner take all system for a person who wins with a plurality?
Would there be some minimum threshhold? How small of a minority might a plurality winner have before you might agree that they not take of of a state’s votes.
BTW apart form the fact that many states do not have bound electors, two already work under a scheme that does not force a winner take all outcome.
D
dvdjs
Guest
House districts more closely follow a one-man one-vote formula. Departures from the formula occur in ow population states, all of which have at least one-elector and may not reach two.
House districts are gerrymandered by parties controlling the state government to maximize ther chances of staying in the majority. Of late, this situation has lead to under-representation of democratic voters in general and minority voters in particular.
- Status