Why should each state's election be elevated above the overall will of the people? You're saying that having a president that lost the popular vote winning an election is a preferred outcome to having the candidate that won the popular vote winning an election in the interests of each state's election getting "attention." That' asinine.
California Assembly approves electoral vote change
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Why should each state's election be elevated above the overall will of the people? You're saying that having a president that lost the popular vote winning an election is a preferred outcome to having the candidate that won the popular vote winning an election in the interests of each state's election getting "attention." That' asinine.
Yes, I am saying the guy who wins more elections in each of the states should win, even if that means that they got heavy votes in other states. The Presidential election shouldn't be controlled solely by high population states, such an election would veritably ensure that low population states would be ignored more than they already are.
Thats exactly what we try to guard against.....the tyranny of the majority.....its the reason the founding fathers set up the government as a representative republic....
SmarterthanYou
rebel
much like the independent investigator law back in the 90s, I see this being condemned as a bad thing in the future, should a democrat have electoral win, but not a popular vote.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
dung doesn't want states to have a voice....thats because he wants heavily populated liberal states to win every election. perhaps we should get rid of the senate and the house and just have people go to washington and vote on every single thing. this is a representative republic....the electoral system makes perfect sense when you consider that.
That's silly. We'd still be a representative republic if the president was elected by popular vote.
That's a nice strawman you've got there.
I want the candidate that receives the most votes to be president to become the president. Crazy stuff.
But that's not how it works now so I don't really understand at all what you are saying.
Having a popular vote election doesn't lead to control by any of the states, it leads to control by the voters of the country as a whole. And who cares if low population states are ignored in favor of high population states (assuming this would happen - it seems to me that a national popular vote would lead to a national election in all states as opposed to hardcore campaigning in a few "swing" states while the rest of the country is largely ignored)? Low population states already have a disproportionate amount of power in the Senate.
IMHO, the real reason for the electoral college was the high rate of illiteracy at the time of the founding. The founders didn't trust commoners to make an informed decision. The part about the states is B.S. The popular vote is all that should matter. The electoral college is an insult to the average citizen.
Only if you ignore the fact that this would simply cause the candidates to solely focus on the high population states to the detriment of states with lesser population.
There's a reason that CA won't do this now, because their state would be utterly ignored if this passed. Their election wouldn't matter at all.
50 elections with different weights, it's pretty much the fairest way to ensure all states are represented in the vote. (Actually 51, can't rule out the D.C.)
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
If the GOP hacks on this board are anything to go by, not much has changed, has it?
While I do appreciate your sentiment, I think that other than a couple notable exceptions, most folks on this board are bright and well informed. The general population though does bear out your comment, since one would have to be very ignorant or very weathy to vote GOP at this point in time.
Good Luck
New member
Ignorance will end up destroying this nation.
Do you brain dead balloons of flatulence think the founders did not realize exactly what they were doing when they decided to institute the electoral college for electing the President instead of going with a straight popular vote? And PLEASE don't come out with the tired old "They did it because of lack of communication technology" crap. If delegates knew what the popular vote of their state was coming in to cast their electoral votes, then they could have as easily delivered that information instead of casting delegate votes. (and how the hell else could they know who to cast their vote for if they didn't know the popular vote of their respective states?)
No, the college was set up on purpose because they recognized the danger of high population states having undue influence over presidential elections. They knew full well that there was the possibility that the college vote could end up overturning the popular vote. But they felt it far more important that any presidential candidate need to carry broad appeal across many states, rather than just a few of the most populated in order to pay obeisance to the popular vote. (Do try to remember that we were set up as a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy.)
They also recognized a basic truth that the president is not SUPPOSED to be a popularly elected figure. The job of representative belongs to congress. A popularly elected president would, by necessity, be beholden to the popular faction that put them in power. (There is way too much of that even with the College in place.) Nothing can possibly be worse for an executive position. The president is an administrative job, not representative, and therefore popular vote should not, and if we are lucky, will not be the sole determining factor in electing our president.
Do you brain dead balloons of flatulence think the founders did not realize exactly what they were doing when they decided to institute the electoral college for electing the President instead of going with a straight popular vote? And PLEASE don't come out with the tired old "They did it because of lack of communication technology" crap. If delegates knew what the popular vote of their state was coming in to cast their electoral votes, then they could have as easily delivered that information instead of casting delegate votes. (and how the hell else could they know who to cast their vote for if they didn't know the popular vote of their respective states?)
No, the college was set up on purpose because they recognized the danger of high population states having undue influence over presidential elections. They knew full well that there was the possibility that the college vote could end up overturning the popular vote. But they felt it far more important that any presidential candidate need to carry broad appeal across many states, rather than just a few of the most populated in order to pay obeisance to the popular vote. (Do try to remember that we were set up as a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy.)
They also recognized a basic truth that the president is not SUPPOSED to be a popularly elected figure. The job of representative belongs to congress. A popularly elected president would, by necessity, be beholden to the popular faction that put them in power. (There is way too much of that even with the College in place.) Nothing can possibly be worse for an executive position. The president is an administrative job, not representative, and therefore popular vote should not, and if we are lucky, will not be the sole determining factor in electing our president.
Good Luck
New member
You can actually come out with the sheer unadulterated brainless tripe seen above, and claim to be INFORMED?
Yeah, I guess you are right.
Even assuming you are correct about how the candidates would act, who cares? Right now the three most populous states are ignored and the lesser populations states are ignored in favor of a handful of "swing" states. How is the the status quo better than candidates campaigning for the broadest appeal of the entire population?
It already passed in California twice only to be vetoed by Ahnuld. I'm guessing the new Gov will sign it.
I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement as to whether it is more important to ensure states are represented as opposed to the will of all of the people respected. I prefer the latter and don't really see a legitimate argument in favor of the former.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
it already works that way...the person with the most electoral votes wins
pretty simple stuff
In The federalist #68, Hamilton basically says that the riff raff can't be trusted so electors are necessary. There is little discussion of the disproportionate impact of high population states. And really, how does counting each vote equally, regardless of in which state it is cast, result in "undue influence." That's asinine. The electoral college system allows low population states to have undue influence. As I noted previously, theoretically, it is possible for a candidate in a two candidate election to lose while gaining almost 80% of the popular vote. That's ridiculous.
But who gives a fuck? Seriously. I don't really give a shit why the founders set up the electoral college. It's asinine. But, even so, the framework is to leave it up to the state legislators to decide how their electors are to be appointed. It is entirely consistent with the founders' intent for the states decide that their electors shall be appointed based on the national popular vote.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
california - 55
wyoming - 3
yep...wyoming really enjoys "undue influence"
Wyoming population per elector: 181,400
California population per elector: 672,030