2020 Presidential Race

[tvolsfan]

All citizens votes are equal. The votes are to determine who the electors (the state) votes for in the POTUS election.

You are simply confused on what you are voting for when you cast the POTUS vote. You are saying I want my state to vote for this person.

They are equal. Each citizen is voting for an elector.

This just isn’t true. Wyoming gets one electoral vote per 190,000 people and California gets one per 680,000 people (this is based on the 2010 census).

 

[volinbham]

This just isn’t true. Wyoming gets one electoral vote per 190,000 people and California gets one per 680,000 people (this is based on the 2010 census).

SMH - you know better (or should). It appears you simply do not understand what a vote in the POTUS election is actually a vote for.

You should be glad the states agreed to proportional allocation of electors instead of each state having the same number of electors...

 

[tvolsfan]

No, it doesn't, but land in NYC doesn't grow crops or produce oil or any number of other things. Needs are different, and you can't protect the needs of one area by mob rule ... which is a straight democracy by the way.

There are plenty of checks to avoid that. It’s why we have districts and the constitution.

 

[tvolsfan]

SMH - you know better (or should). It appears you simply do not understand what a vote in the POTUS election is actually a vote for.

You should be glad the states agreed to proportional allocation of electors instead of each state having the same number of electors...

My entire point is that is not how it should be.

 

[tvolsfan]

Jesus lol

I’ve missed you, bearcat.

 

[AM64]

This just isn’t true. Wyoming gets one electoral vote per 190,000 people and California gets one per 680,000 people (this is based on the 2010 census).

All things considered, I'd prefer the common sense found in WY to that found in CA, so I'm certainly good with your thought that a WY voter casts a bigger vote than a CA nut. I can eat beef from WY, but I can't eat a movie or a lot of other CA products.

 

[tvolsfan]

All things considered, I'd prefer the common sense found in WY to that found in CA, so I'm certainly good with your thought that a WY voter casts a bigger vote than a CA nut. I can eat beef from WY, but I can't eat a movie or a lot of other CA products.

Thanks for admitting it.

What about the disparity between DC and Florida?

 

[hog88]

My entire point is that is not how it should be.

It is how it should be.

If you want it changed lead a movement to amend the constitution. Don't support these constitutional end-a-rounds.

 

[volinbham]

My entire point is that is not how it should be.

And you haven't provided compelling rationale for it.

At the core, the Constitution was a pact between the states and the Federal government. Removing the notion of allocated representation destroys that core. The House, the Senate all work under the same principle as POTUS though the mechanism is different. It is the states who gain representation at the Federal level and the people are represented by the states.

If we follow your logic that votes actually do have unequal weight then we shouldn't have Senators or HORs linked to states. The top 100 vote getting people get to be Senators and the top 435 vote getting people get to be HOR's - that way everyone's vote counts exactly the same for placement of our Federal leaders.

 

[AM64]

There are plenty of checks to avoid that. It’s why we have districts and the constitution.

If you have districts normalized to the size of say a NYC or LA district, then you have a lot of districts in cities and few in the remainder of the state. And the rest of the state just gets outvoted because their elected representatives are completely outnumbered. If districts are unequal in population, then the vote/person isn't equal ... you good with that?

 

[tvolsfan]

It is how it should be.

If you want it changed lead a movement to amend the constitution. Don't support these constitutional end-a-rounds.

This is probably your most valid point so far. On the surface, it doesn’t seem logical that Colorado would factor another states vote into their electoral process.

 

[tvolsfan]

And you haven't provided compelling rationale for it.

At the core, the Constitution was a pact between the states and the Federal government. Removing the notion of allocated representation destroys that core. The House, the Senate all work under the same principle as POTUS though the mechanism is different. It is the states who gain representation at the Federal level and the people are represented by the states.

If we follow your logic that votes actually do have unequal weight then we shouldn't have Senators or HORs linked to states. The top 100 vote getting people get to be Senators and the top 435 vote getting people get to be HOR's - that way everyone's vote counts exactly the same for placement of our Federal leaders.

Regarding the bold. I’m perfectly willing to accept that we may just not see eye to eye on this. I don’t think I’m going to change your mind either way. I just think all votes for the same race should count equally.

Regarding the last paragraph, I do think the senate serves a purpose to give small states equal footing in one chamber.

 

[tvolsfan]

If you have districts normalized to the size of say a NYC or LA district, then you have a lot of districts in cities and few in the remainder of the state. And the rest of the state just gets outvoted because their elected representatives are completely outnumbered. If districts are unequal in population, then the vote/person isn't equal ... you good with that?

I definitely think districts should contain as close to an equal number of voters as realistically possible.

 

[volinbham]

Regarding the bold. I’m perfectly willing to accept that we may just not see eye to eye on this. I don’t think I’m going to change your mind either way. I just think all votes for the same race should count equally.

Regarding the last paragraph, I do think the senate serves a purpose to give small states equal footing in one chamber.

Actually the House gives the same purpose. The problem you are alleging (votes don't count the same) is absolutely true in both the House and Senate as well as at the POTUS level. If you see why states need representation in the legislative branch it's not fathomable to me why you wouldn't think it the same at the executive level (judicial is mute since they are not subject to vote).

Further, your position requires a fundamental shift in the intent and actual construction of the Constitution. As GV said earlier, what you are advocating in effect destroys the Constitution as conceived since it is primarily the pact between States and the Federal government.

If the problem is every citizen's vote doesn't count the same at the Federal level then why wouldn't that apply at all positions (Senate, House, POTUS)?

 

[tvolsfan]

Actually the House gives the same purpose. The problem you are alleging (votes don't count the same) is absolutely true in both the House and Senate as well as at the POTUS level. If you see why states need representation in the legislative branch it's not fathomable to me why you wouldn't think it the same at the executive level (judicial is mute since they are not subject to vote).

I think each vote should be equal in each particular race. That isn’t currently the case.

Further, your position requires a fundamental shift in the intent and actual construction of the Constitution. As GV said earlier, what you are advocating in effect destroys the Constitution as conceived since it is primarily the pact between States and the Federal government.

I don’t agree with this at all.

 

[hog88]

The only nationwide change to the EC I wouldn't mind seeing is that each states electors be allocated by who wins the congressional districts and the two senator elector votes goes to the overall winner in the state. Of course a change like this would take gerrymandering to a whole new level.

 

[LouderVol]

I definitely think districts should contain as close to an equal number of voters as realistically possible.

Logistically impossible. you would see so much gerrymandering just to figure out where the lines could be drawn.

 

[volinbham]

I think each vote should be equal in each particular race. That isn’t currently the case.

They are not in House or Senate races either. A Senator in Wyoming gets elected with far fewer votes than one from California - so it takes many more Californians to get a Senator elected. The same is true for the House since the proportional allocation of seats to states is not evenly aligned with true population divisions. Then we have the districting issues were districts within states are not evenly divided so an HR from one district needed more votes than one from another (put another way, each voter in the smaller district has more "voice" than those in larger districts).

You can't get away from the "unequal weight" issue for any of these races unless you removed the state part of the equation.

I don’t agree with this at all.

You don't agree that the states agreed to cede power to the Federal government based on the promise of representation for the states?

 

[volinbham]

Simple question:

If a state like Arizona gets 9 House seats, why shouldn't everyone in the state vote on all 9? As it stands now, voters in smaller districts votes count more than those in larger districts.

 

[tvolsfan]

They are not in House or Senate races either. A Senator in Wyoming gets elected with far fewer votes than one from California - so it takes many more Californians to get a Senator elected. The same is true for the House since the proportional allocation of seats to states is not evenly aligned with true population divisions. Then we have the districting issues were districts within states are not evenly divided so an HR from one district needed more votes than one from another (put another way, each voter in the smaller district has more "voice" than those in larger districts).

You can't get away from the "unequal weight" issue for any of these races unless you removed the state part of the equation.



You don't agree that the states agreed to cede power to the Federal government based on the promise of representation for the states?

No, I don’t agree that what I’m advocating destroys any of that.

 

[volinbham]

No, I don’t agree that what I’m advocating destroys any of that.

It eliminates the State's role in choosing the POTUS!; the executive branch. If it's a strict national popular vote than the State has no say. Currently it does which ensures it's representation in system.

 

[C-south]

Simple question:

If a state like Arizona gets 9 House seats, why shouldn't everyone in the state vote on all 9? As it stands now, voters in smaller districts votes count more than those in larger districts.

He’ll worry about that when dims lose the house.

 

[BearCat204]

It is how it should be.

If you want it changed lead a movement to amend the constitution. Don't support these constitutional end-a-rounds.

Which would take 3/4 of the states to agree with........................................and doesnt have a shot in hell of ever happening and for good reason

 

[tvolsfan]

Simple question:

If a state like Arizona gets 9 House seats, why shouldn't everyone in the state vote on all 9? As it stands now, voters in smaller districts votes count more than those in larger districts.

In each individual race, the votes are counted evenly.

To propose a counter argument, do you think that all gubernatorial elections should have their own version of the electoral college. Where people in smaller counties get a disproportionate share of the vote?

 

[LouderVol]

In each individual race, the votes are counted evenly.

To propose a counter argument, do you think that all gubernatorial elections should have their own version of the electoral college. Where people in smaller counties get a disproportionate share of the vote?

Pretty sure states are allowed to choose their own elected however they see fit. its only their representatives that go to the Federal level that have to worry about meeting the rules of the Constitution.