Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Has the Electoral College passed it's Prime?
zoey121
Member Posts: 926
Do you think it is time to add a constitiutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College and just base elections on popular vote?
Comments
when people say yes to that they dont realize what would happen to low population states
For instance new mexico my state has a population of 1,954,599
However we have 5 electoral votes.
Without the electoral college canadates would only campaign in about 15 states california, new york, florida, texas, virgina, michigan, etc.
So think about those who dont live in highly populated states before you want to kill the electoral college.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Vampir is absolutely correct. The electoral college exists to give states greater power. The Federal government has grown in power, and many today simply do not consider the notion of State's Rights. However, it is a foundation of our country that has been eroded for years. Individual states are not simply sub-units of the Federal government, they are functioning governments with their owns laws, rights, and powers.
Although I live in Texas, I want the electoral college to remain. Not because I believe the argument that it can give an unpopular candidate a win, but that the system is right for our country. I do not share the views of California, Illinois, New York, etc and do not want them having the political muscle to shove their candidate down my throat. The way it is now, at least small states like Wyoming, Montana, etc have some say in the election. We live in a large country, spanning thousands of miles with huge differences in political needs from one end to the other. Forcing the rural midwest through sheer political population based power into the agenda of LA, SF, SD, Chicago, NYC, Boston etc is just plain wrong for the country as a whole.
Just to play devil's advocate: Why should a califronian vote hold less weight than a new mexican vote?
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
The electoral college keeps politicians focused on the country as a whole otherwise they would look at it as a google map with population on it.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Yes. But since it gives a disproportionate amount of power to small, red states it will never go away, the Republicans will have none of that. And the idea that California's the sole deciding state is absurd. Why are the Republicans trying to split California's electoral votes by district? Because the state is only 'liberal' in total. If split by district, it would sway the election to the GOP. Does anyone need to be reminded that California is the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan? If there were no electoral college, California would be a non-issue.
I don't believe eliminating the EC would force candidates to concentrate on populous states either. Quite the opposite, there would be no advantage to concentrating anywhere; a vote is vote. What it might do is force the campaigns entirely onto television (or other mass media), but from where I'm siting that's where it is already. It's still preferable to the situation as it is now; where states are completely ignored because they are too partisan to attract any attention. Why would anyone campaign in Utah, Idaho or Wyoming, a Democrat can't win and it would be a waste of money for a Republican.
Yes, its time. Leaving the actual vote up, to a very few people, and not really having anything in place to hold them accountable, for voting according to the actual vote numbers, just invites , manipulation, oversite drama, and at the very least , un nessecary speculation. I think, it may even invite, corruption, and dont doubt it has been corrupted before. Essentially it has been obsolete, since the invention of telecomunications, at least. And I see no logical reason for it , to have been left in place this long, except for the possebility, of corrupting, and manipulating it. Jesus Christ I cant even spell Posability , any more.
Posibility
possebility
oh for God sakes, I give up
The era of campaigning State by State from the back of a train car is over. If this primary season has shown me anything it's how tired that form of Presidential campaigning is becoming. In this age of instant gratification, the internet, and 24 hour news networks...there's really no excuse for people not to be informed about the candidates months before the November general elections take place. The idea that the States' power must be balanced with the power of the people is antiquated. I live in a smaller state and all I can say is: the smaller states are going to either have to get over it or start having more babies.
I'm not going to say whether the Electoral College should be abolished or not, I'm just playing devil's advocate about the campaigning issue.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
How many times in history has the electoral college disagreed with the popular vote? Not many. Even in the 2000 election Al Gore won the popular and electoral vote.
I like some of your arguments against the electoral, but still believe it hasn't past it's prime quite yet. At the moment I still feel the electoral holds a means of balance to the system.
In regards to making more babies in the red states, it really has nothing to do with babies, it has to do with jobs. Manufacturing and industrial jobs that used to be in the red states have modernized or moved resulting in more people moving away. Agricultural jobs are nearly non-existent in comparison to the pre-WW2 era. Bottom line is that if national political power became centralized around major metro areas only, you would see the incentive to become more centralized increase. I guess eventually everything would even out once the US population was completely centralized in CA, TX, NY, MA, VA, GA, PA, DC and FL.
WELL DUH, the electoral college should be removed.
"when people say yes to that they dont realize what would happen to low population states"
Not important. There is one national president chosen by people from all states. The only way to make every vote count the same is to get rid of the notion that my state needs to be more powerful in the presidential election. You get two senators, isn't that good enough?
We don't need any more state bias in a presidential election. As much as New Hampshire gets helped out some, a bigger state gets wiped out a bit. It's plain stupid. Supposedly, the issue is that electoral college makes the minority vote count less, and that's why there hasn't been much conflict on our constitutional electoral college. There is also fear of making more statistically sound systems in the US -- thus making our constituion more finalized and indisputable, which doesn't suit well for republicans.
As for me, a statistician, I am totally for less bias in all government systems. F*ck state bias over a national president.
'Agricultural jobs are nearly non-existent in comparison to the pre-WW2 era. Bottom line is that if national political power became centralized around major metro areas only, you would see the incentive to become more centralized increase. '
Maybe so, but at the same time, we could be giving out grants to help farmers. even if ridding the electoral college causes another minor problem, it's fixable.
Also centralization/decentralization is relative. A keen mind can write statistically sound laws that can balance everything as best as possible.
That's just the thing...with no Electoral College there is no "Red State" "Blue State". In my state there's hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters whose votes get discounted by the Electoral College because Republicans win the state 99% of the time in the general election. In California and New York there's millions of Republican voters whose votes aren't considered in the general election because...shocking California and New York go Democrat 99% of the time.
Really the Electoral College as it is set up right now gives more preference to large urban centers than the popular vote ever could. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Detroit etc... All examples of large urban centers dominated by Democratic voters. The populations of these cities, because they're so large, end up skewing the vote in their states. There's lots of Republicans in Nevada, but you wouldn't know it because the voters in Las Vegas tilt the states Electoral votes. Can you imagine if California's Republican voters were represented equally by the Electoral College? That would be a Democrats worst nightmare. So I don't buy that using the popular vote would cause a shift toward urban centers, nor do I buy the whole "Red State" "Blue State" partisan propaganda.
As for "Red States" losing agricultural jobs... I live in the South and I can fairly say that the South is quickly becoming the new location of industry. Just look at the international corporations choosing to build assembly plants in the United States...where are they building these plants? In the South. Meanwhile, states like Michigan are suffering because it used to be a center of industry and now that industry is packing up and moving away...but Michigan is hardly a "Red State" by any stretch of the imagination.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
I generally just say NO to any change in the constitution.
Here is Alexander Hamilton's defense of the Electoral college in the Federalist papers
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm
Believe me Korusus, I understand your argument. I just don't think this is the time to change. In reality, the time to change was probably around the end of WW2 in my eyes. I really don't want to derail the conversation here, but my reasoning is more based on my feelings toward our whole political climate right now. I think that changing anything in the Constitution at this point in history is a bad idea and a bad precedent. Our political climate is so derisive and polarized I feel that a libertarian stance on the Constitution needs to be followed, to include our electoral college. Just my beliefs is all, it has nothing to do with some sense of commitment to nostalgia or states rights.
I don't want to poke fun at your post Thrakk, I do respect what you wrote. However I got a chuckle out of the highlighted sentence and thinking about it in reference to our elected officials.
Our governments, state and national, are so out-of-line right now, people can't even comprehend the final goal without seeing all the little mishaps along the way. You can't change one thing to make it better. It works best when you change lots of things until they all align in the most righteous combination.
-It's too difficult to create a perfect government.. stick with our forefathers. They made something that works (wow). They died without any sins on their sleaves. They must have the only right answer as if there can't be more.
A keen mind can write statistically sound laws that can balance everything as best as possible.
Also, the balancing act is realtive. It's not just democrat vs. republican / state vs. national nonsense / majority vs. minority nonsense. Theres a lot more to it than that. Maybe I didn't phrase that sentence correctly. (I did like using the word keen though)
"They died without any sins on their sleaves." - that's relative too. hehe.
Thomas Jefferson was a pimp.
Yeah, I understood what you meant. Very difficult to accomplish now days it seems. Maybe I'm wrong, it just appears very little is being done that is using anything close to a keen mind.
I whole-heartedly agree with you.