R
Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the
- Status
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
…electoral college.
No thanks, we don’t need New York and California running the country.
No thanks, we don’t need New York and California running the country.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Abolishing the electoral college will not hurt rural voters in California or New York or Texas or Florida or Pennsylvania or Illinois or Ohio or Georgia or North Carolina or Michigan. It will help them. Those rural voters will have a vote that counts for more. Right now those rural voters have almost no voice. I dare say there are more rural voters in populous states than there are in states with lower population. So more rural voters will be helped than will be hurt.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Yes it will, look at a red/blue map. Their ‘red’ interests are often represented by proxy as other more rural areas exert a counter influence to the big city blue vote.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t understand that at all. Could you elaborate?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
What sore losers!!
T
Theo520
Guest
Rural interests in high-density states are represented indirectly by the people in more rural states,
Can you explain your logic in this statement “Those rural voters will have a vote that counts for more.”
There is no situation where their current rural vote will count for more by doing away with the electoral college.
J
John24
Guest
I’m glad the Democratic Party supports equality.
T
Theo520
Guest
I’m glad we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
A republic better protects minority rights.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Look at it this way, the rural voters in northeastern California, eastern Colorado, etc., can still get their interests represented by rural voters in ‘red’ states. Which will no longer be the case should the Electoral College be abolished as nearly all voting power will devolve to the large metropolitan areas in that scenario. Essentially nearly completely disenfranchising the rural voters from the presidential election. If that’s what one wants, they need to own it.
Want to look at the history of the Electoral College: this was a large vs small dispute at the Constitutional Convention. If it had not been resolved, it would have resulted in no USA as we know it today. But the large vs small dispute has always been with us to the present day.
Should also point out for everyone’s benefit that amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3’s vote of both Houses of Congress, that’s 67 Senators and 290 Representatives. They also require ratification by 3/4’s of the states. That’s 38 states. Trump took 30 states to Hillary’s 20 in 2016.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I see. The rural voters in Ohio are going to trust that the rural voters in Montana have the same interests as they do. But the farmers in Ohio are mainly interested in policies that affect soybeans, corn, dairy, and eggs, while Montana farmers are more known for cattle, wheat, hay, barley, and sugar beets. When the President starts a trade war with China and soybean prices are affected, the farmers in Ohio that grow soybeans will not feel very represented by farmers in Montana. I think the Ohio farmers would be offended if they were told they could stay home on election day because the people of Montana were going to speak for them.LeafByNiggle:
Rural interests in high-density states are represented indirectly by the people in more rural states,
Yes there is. Right now a rural voter in California has zero chance of changing the outcome of the Presidential election, because all the California electors are going to go for the Democratic candidate (for the near future anyway). But if we do away with the electoral college, a farmer in California will have the same chance of affecting the outcome as any other person.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
They will still have zero chance of impacting the presidential election, as will rural voters in rural states. Their current dilemma is just expanded to reflect the whole country.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I suspect this amendment is not proposed with any thought that it might be passed. Everyone recognizes this is not a serious effort. The intent is likely to legitimize the idea, and that what could never pass as a constitutional amendment can be achieved by other means with less opposition.
Consider that Connecticut and Colorado have passed state laws giving the states’ electoral votes to the candidate that wins, not the most votes in Connecticut or Colorado, but in the US. This is a mechanism to bypass the Electoral College without amending the Constitution to do it.
It also ties in with the rumblings about illegals voting in states like California. If you allow anyone with a driver’s license to vote - and put up no significant barrier to obtaining a license - then illegals count in determining where Connecticut’s (et al) votes go. The Electoral College is still a barrier to Democrat control of the presidency so one can understand the impetus to discard it.
J
John24
Guest
They will have exactly the same impact on the presidential election as I do. Imagine that, treating everyone equally! And hey, now red voters in blue states and vice versa will have more of an impact. Sounds good to me.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Everyone has a near-zero chance of affecting the outcome. The question is how near to zero is it? When farmers in California have to compete with the liberal city interests in that state, they are vastly outnumbered. But when farmers in California, together with farmers everywhere have to compete with city interests in general, their chance of affecting the outcome is not as close to zero as it was before.LeafByNiggle:
They will still have zero chance of impacting the presidential election, as will rural voters in rural states. Their current dilemma is just expanded to reflect the whole country.
J
John24
Guest
As California doesn’t do that your concerns are baseless.
T
Theo520
Guest
I’m glad we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
A republic better protects minority rights.
So you think it’s good for them because they have risen from zero chance to just a smidgen above zero chance? And in the process they lose the indirect representation they receive from more rural states that are looking out for rural interests in our federal laws.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why don’t you ask the rural voters in Ohio and see if they would rather have their interests represented by farmers in Montana. I’m not sure either one of us can speak for those Ohioans.
J
John24
Guest
I’m not, we know how that ends.
The Senate still exists (though it shouldn’t).
- Status