Bill Introduced To Abolish Electoral College

[OHvol40]

And us minority states do not want to ruled by the majority states.

They tried that once

 

[C-south]

Will you ever be able to undo the knot you have tied yourself into?

So is the minority opinion ever correct?

Ever been on a jury?

 

[hog88]

They tried that once

So you are fine with mob tyranny.

 

[C-south]

So a minority of votes elected a majority of votes?
Hardly seems like the majority determined the winner.
Sometimes twisting just makes the knots tighter.

Does Montana have more votes than California? Why not?

 

[0nelilreb]

Again, why do arbitrary lines dictate a disproportionate say for any given population?

Spain Great Britain and France are asking the same question . The answer is still the same .. because the constitution was written and agreed upon with the special clause in it that allows us to change it when we want to by majority vote . It’s literally the greatest governing document ever written when you take into account that it allows for itself to be change whenever the people choose to change it into whatever the majority decides .

 

[OHvol40]

So you are fine with mob tyranny.

No

 

[tn4elvis]

Very bad idea..luckily it has zero chance of being passed

Democrat introducing bill to abolish Electoral College

Doa.

 

[hog88]

No

That is exactly what you are advocating. You want the 4-5 largest urban areas in the country to rule the rest of us.

 

[BisonVol]

No, I’m saying that I don’t want minority states to have an unfair say.

The system isn't perfect, but it isn't unfair to the majority. After all, the more populated states such as California still get more electorates than lesser populated states such as Tennessee.

 

[C-south]

The system isn't perfect but it isn't unfair to the majority. After all, the more populated states such as California still get more electorates than lesser populated states such as Tennessee.

He wants to govern Hunger Games style.

 

[BisonVol]

He wants to govern Hunger Games style.

What he wants is for Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Los Angeles to run the country. His side wins that way every time, and he knows it.

 

[OHvol40]

That is exactly what you are advocating. You want the 4-5 largest urban areas in the country to rule the rest of us.

That’s not my advocacy, that’s your fear.

 

[0nelilreb]

That’s not my advocacy, that’s your fear.

Thats anyone’s fear that has two brain cell because that’s what would happen .

 

[newyorkvol]

Kind of. It’s still not representative of the population equally though.
Population vs. Electoral Votes - Fairvote

The problem is they divide by the electors which includes one for each senator. Again, that is done to give states equal representation as part of the union. The electors for the representatives gives equal weight for the population. So by dividing by the total number of electors, it will skew the percentage

 

[hog88]

That’s not my advocacy, that’s your fear.

I don't fear eliminating the EC or apportioning senators because it ain't going to happen.

 

[OHvol40]

The system isn't perfect, but it isn't unfair to the majority. After all, the more populated states such as California still get more electorates than lesser populated states such as Tennessee.

Well, it would be weird if they had less. The problem is they are still not representative of the citizens within that state even though a citizen of any state isn’t any more or less affected by the governance of the executives elected.

 

[OHvol40]

Thats anyone’s fear that has two brain cell because that’s what would happen .

It’s not just anyone’s fear.

 

[0nelilreb]

It’s not just anyone’s fear.

I qualified that post for you .

 

[C-south]

Well, it would be weird if they had less. The problem is they are still not representative of the citizens within that state even though a citizen of any state isn’t any more or less affected by the governance of the executives elected.

California is free to do whatever they want except solely be responsible for choosing the president.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Why does that matter? It’s the same principle.

It matters exactly due to how I have stated my stance on the topic. I don’t agree with your premise that individual votes should be weighted the same across state lines for the two national offices we have. We’ve never done it that way and you haven’t offered a convincing reason why we should change. And the method the states use internally for the states citizens direct representation of their state officials doesn’t automatically make it align with the intent of the founding fathers to emphasize equal states in the Republic.

 

[BisonVol]

Well, it would be weird if they had less. The problem is they are still not representative of the citizens within that state even though a citizen of any state isn’t any more or less affected by the governance of the executives elected.

Of course it would be weird if they had less. They don't, yet you still complain.

Again, if the number of elecorates in each state were directly proportional to the population of that state, every election would be decided by five or six major metropolitan areas. Same as if there were no EC at all. That's what the system is designed to prevent, and that is how it should be.

 

[OHvol40]

The problem is they divide by the electors which includes one for each senator. Again, that is done to give states equal representation as part of the union. The electors for the representatives gives equal weight for the population. So by dividing by the total number of electors, it will skew the percentage

The skewing that is mind-blowingly anti-democratic is this:
“For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318%”

 

[newyorkvol]

The skewing that is mind-blowingly anti-democratic is this:
“For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318%”

It’s mind blowing because that’s a mis-interpretation. Wyoming has 1 elector for their 532000 citizens. It has two others for being a state in the union.

 

[OHvol40]

California is free to do whatever they want except solely be responsible for choosing the president.

California isn’t a person. The people of California or Idaho or South Carolina should have the right to have their votes count equally. To ignore the inequality in this system of a country that was largely founded on the ideals of equality is thoughtless.

 

[OHvol40]

It matters exactly due to how I have stated my stance on the topic. I don’t agree with your premise that individual votes should be weighted the same across state lines for the two national offices we have. We’ve never done it that way and you haven’t offered a convincing reason why we should change. And the method the states use internally for the states citizens direct representation of their state officials doesn’t automatically make it align with the intent of the founding fathers to emphasize equal states in the Republic.

So if the system is infallible and just, why wouldn’t the states adopt it. Surely you know there are different populations within each state. Some rural, some urban, some suburban... why would they not do the same?