The best argument for using popular vote for presidential race.

California has a population of 39 million, Delaware has a population of 1 million, that is not equal representation and that is something they cannot overcome.

However if we look at the 55 electoral votes vs. the 3 electoral votes you can see how Delaware is on more equal footing.

That is how the electoral college makes the election more representative of the nation as a whole and not being run by the most populous states.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
California has 55 electoral votes, Delaware has 3 so it is completely representative of the population but those small states can add up meaning that politicians must also pay attention to them because you can't win by just focusing on the bigger states.

That is why we have the electoral college.
Click to expand...

But you CAN win by focusing on the larger states. If all you have to do to win all 100% of the the big states electoral votes is campaign enough to win only 51% of the votes, then you don't even have to focus.

You're getting 100% representation from only 51% of campaign effort. You think that's representation?

The way the current electoral system is set up, a presidential candidate can win the election with less than 30% of the popular vote.
If you don't see that as a disqualifier, you're too far gone.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
California has 55 electoral votes, Delaware has 3 so it is completely representative of the population but those small states can add up meaning that politicians must also pay attention to them because you can't win by just focusing on the bigger states.

That is why we have the electoral college.
Click to expand...

yes....I posted that also......
 
Joe Capitalist said:
But they are NOT equal. Electoral votes are proportional to population.
California has 55 and Wyoming has 3. I hope you're smart enough to realize that 55 does not equal 3 so stop saying states have equal representation if you want to stop sounding stupid.

And why do you think Maine and Nevada divide their electoral votes? It provides for more proportional representation.
As it should be.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you cannot divide.....
 
Joe Capitalist said:
But you CAN win by focusing on the larger states. If all you have to do to win all 100% of the the big states electoral votes is campaign enough to win only 51% of the votes, then you don't even have to focus.

You're getting 100% representation from only 51% of campaign effort. You think that's representation?

The way the current electoral system is set up, a presidential candidate can win the election with less than 30% of the popular vote.
If you don't see that as a disqualifier, you're too far gone.
Click to expand...

The top five most populous states control 34% of the people.

If they were all to side with one party it would essentially win the election with the other states having no say in it.


The foundation of our constitution is based on states rights and equal representation and the electoral college establishes that perfectly well.

It prevents certain parts of the nation from being able to dictate to the rest of the nation what to do.

Say that California and Arizona are having a dispute over a water issue and an election is coming up. Who do you think the presidential candidate is going to appeal to?

The state that has 39 million votes or the state that has 7 million votes?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The top five most populous states control 34% of the people.

If they were all to side with one party it would essentially win the election with the other states having no say in it.


The foundation of our constitution is based on states rights and equal representation and the electoral college establishes that perfectly well.

It prevents certain parts of the nation from being able to dictate to the rest of the nation what to do.

Say that California and Arizona are having a dispute over a water issue and an election is coming up. Who do you think the presidential candidate is going to appeal to?

The state that has 39 million votes or the state that has 7 million votes?
Click to expand...

Explain to me in something that makes sense how The top five most populous states control 34% of the people.

Until you do that, there's no use continuing this discussion.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Explain to me in something that makes sense how The top five most populous states control 34% of the people.

Until you do that, there's no use continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...

The top five states have 34% of the population and they usually lean one side or the other although there are exceptions such as battleground states which we have 12 of this election cycle, the rest usually vote overwhelmingly one way or the other that is why they are called red or blue.

The problem with a direct vote is you will have special interests focusing on these more populous states to get even more of the vote to lean this way or that while ignoring the rest of the country.

While no party would get the top five states at this point that doesn't mean it won't change in the future which would ensure one party a lock on the presidency.

Because we have the electoral college these special interests must spread their influence throughout the entire nation instead of being able to focus it on only a few states.

Candidates must remain more moderate to appeal to the whole nation instead of a few select states that will guarantee them a win.

If you want to appeal to New York you also have to appeal to Nebraska where in a direct election Nebraska would be irrelevant.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The top five states have 34% of the population and they usually lean one side or the other although there are exceptions such as battleground states which we have 12 of this election cycle, the rest usually vote overwhelmingly one way or the other that is why they are called red or blue.

The problem with a direct vote is you will have special interests focusing on these more populous states to get even more of the vote to lean this way or that while ignoring the rest of the country.

While no party would get the top five states at this point that doesn't mean it won't change in the future which would ensure one party a lock on the presidency.

Because we have the electoral college these special interests must spread their influence throughout the entire nation instead of being able to focus it on only a few states.

Candidates must remain more moderate to appeal to the whole nation instead of a few select states that will guarantee them a win.

If you want to appeal to New York you also have to appeal to Nebraska where in a direct election Nebraska would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that doesn't come close to explaining how the top five most populous states control 34% of the people.

You want to try again? Remember, I said something that makes sense.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Control was the wrong word, they have 34% of the population so get over it.
Click to expand...

So even if top five most populous states have 34% of the people, how does that justify the electoral college?

How does that justify California getting 100% democratic representation of 55 electoral votes with only 51% of the Democratic popular vote in the state?

Justify a voting system whereby a presidential candidate can win the election with less than 30% of the popular vote.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The electoral college exists to give smaller states a voice in the election.

Wyoming has far different interests then California does but with a popular vote you will essentially have the five most populous states deciding every election meaning their needs are going to be met first.

Candidates will no longer pay attention to states with low populations or hear their concerns, they will be focusing on the states with the most people meaning only those states are going to get their issues addressed.

All of our states are considered equal in power and the electoral college helps to ensure that.
Click to expand...

That’s not quite accurate, back in 1787 they weren’t worried about small States being underrepresented, it wasn’t there major concern in electing an Executive, in fact, there were only 13 States, and other than RI, Delaware, and Georgia, all the other States had six digit populations (https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_700506270.pdf)

What bothered the Founding Fathers was how to elect the President, and confused, they threw in the provision of letting the States choose their own electors, remember, at that time, States picked their own Senators. The Electoral College itself wasn’t added to the Constitution till 1800

The whole but about insuring smaller States being underrepresented is bullshit, and what it has developed into is a undemocratic system, a State as Wyoming, has as more influence in national policy that metro Buffalo, which is bigger than the entire State of Wyoming. And the trend will get worse, predictions are showing the US will become close to seventy percent urban in the near future, and yet agricultural interests will have more sway over the national Government

Having said all that, nothing will change, and the archaic system will continue to give us leaders who don’t represent the majority of Americans
 
archives said:
That’s not quite accurate, back in 1787 they weren’t worried about small States being underrepresented, it wasn’t there major concern in electing an Executive, in fact, there were only 13 States, and other than RI, Delaware, and Georgia, all the other States had six digit populations (https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_700506270.pdf)

What bothered the Founding Fathers was how to elect the President, and confused, they threw in the provision of letting the States choose their own electors, remember, at that time, States picked their own Senators. The Electoral College itself wasn’t added to the Constitution till 1800

The whole but about insuring smaller States being underrepresented is bullshit, and what it has developed into is a undemocratic system, a State as Wyoming, has as more influence in national policy that metro Buffalo, which is bigger than the entire State of Wyoming. And the trend will get worse, predictions are showing the US will become close to seventy percent urban in the near future, and yet agricultural interests will have more sway over the national Government

Having said all that, nothing will change, and the archaic system will continue to give us leaders who don’t represent the majority of Americans
Click to expand...

Buffalo also has far more electors then Wyoming does so it's all relative.

So basically it boils down to this.

However Buffalo votes erases the vote in Wyoming so how is that fair to the people in Wyoming who also are entitled to representation?

Wyoming may very well have different priorities than Buffalo but they will never be heard.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Why should less people get more say? That's not equal.
Click to expand...

Black adults are just around 7% of the population....so they should have very very little say....right


Gay are just around 3% of the population so they should have hardly any say at all...right
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top