Will You Recognize and Support the Presidential Election Results?

[Mick]

Saw the FBI was looking at another incident where ballots were found in a ditch. Different state and can’t recall the link. Started to post it but didn’t have time. Regardless of side, if any of these incidents are intentional, that’s completely unacceptable.

You will probably get those that do stupid stuff like print ballots and throw in a ditch.

 

[LouderVol]

Tl;dr, The EC may actually favor larger states not smaller ones.

Not sure where to put this, and it indirectly impacts presidential elections and it seems we were having EC arguments in here.

Listened to part of an NPR segment on my drive home. It was talking about the transition of the black community from slaves to citizens, and all that happened with that. the various amendments, laws, and so forth. It even brought up the 3/5 compromise.

The question of who the census should count, and the representation in the House based on it. was brought up. during slave times the census counted slaves. however the north didn't think the slaves should count towards representation because they weren't represented citizens. It gave votes without representing the slaves. Unfair advantage to the large slave holding states. eventually they landed on the 3/5 compromise, its even in the constitution Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. infact it read that all "other people", not just slaves, were to count as 3/5. the 14th eventually over ruled this, to say that all personage is counted.

Per the Constitution everyone should be counted in the census. There is no restriction of citizenship or not. Per the Constitution everyone gets represented even if they don't vote 14th amendment.

reason I bring this up is the age old EC argument that was going on in here.

Not only do you have the citizen population vote representation in the EC difference, but you also have the non-citizens weighing that as well.

A state with more no-citizens is going to get more representation in the House of Representatives, which means they get more EC votes.

The normal argument is that this favors the small states because the 2 senate votes skews it in favor of the medium states 7-20 because of the math break downs(not the small 3 vote states).

But continuing that same line of thinking, the larger states get more representatives, taking away from the smaller states, because they have more non-citizens in them. U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 This weighs the scale back in favor of the large states. as you can see in the graphic in the link, the larger states have more illegal immigrants. Who are rightly counted in the census, and rightly effect Representation.

Now I haven't done the math, and not even sure how to begin breaking it down. But now it seems that the EC naturally favors both the mid size states as well as the larger states, over the small states. Well not actually "now", it always has. But the nation has always assumed that its the Wyomings being helped, but the math and the Constitution say otherwise.

A citizen in the 7-20, or the larger states, is probably more represented than a citizen in a smaller state.

Let the debate!

 

[Wafflestomper]

Tl;dr, The EC may actually favor larger states not smaller ones.

Not sure where to put this, and it indirectly impacts presidential elections and it seems we were having EC arguments in here.

Listened to part of an NPR segment on my drive home. It was talking about the transition of the black community from slaves to citizens, and all that happened with that. the various amendments, laws, and so forth. It even brought up the 3/5 compromise.

The question of who the census should count, and the representation in the House based on it. was brought up. during slave times the census counted slaves. however the north didn't think the slaves should count towards representation because they weren't represented citizens. It gave votes without representing the slaves. Unfair advantage to the large slave holding states. eventually they landed on the 3/5 compromise, its even in the constitution Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. infact it read that all "other people", not just slaves, were to count as 3/5. the 14th eventually over ruled this, to say that all personage is counted.

Per the Constitution everyone should be counted in the census. There is no restriction of citizenship or not. Per the Constitution everyone gets represented even if they don't vote 14th amendment.

reason I bring this up is the age old EC argument that was going on in here.

Not only do you have the citizen population vote representation in the EC difference, but you also have the non-citizens weighing that as well.

A state with more no-citizens is going to get more representation in the House of Representatives, which means they get more EC votes.

The normal argument is that this favors the small states because the 2 senate votes skews it in favor of the medium states 7-20 because of the math break downs(not the small 3 vote states).

But continuing that same line of thinking, the larger states get more representatives, taking away from the smaller states, because they have more non-citizens in them. U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 This weighs the scale back in favor of the large states. as you can see in the graphic in the link, the larger states have more illegal immigrants. Who are rightly counted in the census, and rightly effect Representation.

Now I haven't done the math, and not even sure how to begin breaking it down. But now it seems that the EC naturally favors both the mid size states as well as the larger states, over the small states. Well not actually "now", it always has. But the nation has always assumed that its the Wyomings being helped, but the math and the Constitution say otherwise.

A citizen in the 7-20, or the larger states, is probably more represented than a citizen in a smaller state.

Let the debate!

I think you may be conflating the size of the state with whether it leans left or right. If you mean to imply that actually larger (blue) states have an advantage over smaller (red) states then it may be even more surprising to democrats that they win the popular vote and, despite having an advantage in the EC, somehow lose the election. Although if you take the whole populations of California and Wyoming (39.78 million and 0.55 million, respectively) and divide by number of electors (55 and 3, respectively), you see that Wyoming clearly has a large advantage even if you discard the maximum estimated number of illegal immigrants from the population in CA from the link you posted.
Regardless, this doesn't seem to address the relevant part of the EC debate going on today, viz., why it's actually better than a straight up popular vote in modern times.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Why ?

This is an extremely underrated question for this subject
Edit: It was in response to a Lefty saying that voting should be easy.

 

[LouderVol]

I think you may be conflating the size of the state with whether it leans left or right. If you mean to imply that actually larger (blue) states have an advantage over smaller (red) states then it may be even more surprising to democrats that they win the popular vote and, despite having an advantage in the EC, somehow lose the election. Although if you take the whole populations of California and Wyoming (39.78 million and 0.55 million, respectively) and divide by number of electors (55 and 3, respectively), you see that Wyoming clearly has a large advantage even if you discard the maximum estimated number of illegal immigrants from the population in CA from the link you posted.
Regardless, this doesn't seem to address the relevant part of the EC debate going on today, viz., why it's actually better than a straight up popular vote in modern times.

I posted an article earlier that showed it was actually the mid size states that the EC favored via the population break down vs the total. So while the 3 wyoming votes represent fewer people than anyone else, those three votes are easily covered up in the total vote count. Basically no presidential election has gotten to where those three votes matter. So yes they may be more represented, but it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things as the millions in California still have more power.

The second idea I am.brought up yesterday was that larger states, both blue and red, numbers are inflated due to illegals/non citizens being counted. And I am not saying this is wrong, this is per the Consitiution. There are more non citizens adding to californias EC count than there are people in Wyoming. Does that account for the 3:1 of wyoming vs california? No. And without doing tons of math I havent seen a breakdown of how it effects the EC breakdown. It may not really.

But if you are a democracy purist there is more than the two senate seats skewing the counts.

 

[LouderVol]

This is an extremely underrated question for this subject
Edit: It was in response to a Lefty saying that voting should be easy.

A better one is, what?

What makes it difficult?

I just have to laugh at people who expect working with the government to be easy or convenient. I always wonder if it's their first time or where they are where the government runs well enough to expect better? Like is it really on voting that is bad from the government? It's not. They only care because that is where the power lies.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I see them every day.

Of the 30% that support Trump maybe 15 -20% are in shape fighting age men or women.

Most are old or in poor health or a combination of the two.

His supporters are older and come from the most obese and uneducated states. That is literally a fact.

Wow.... stereotype much? You’re a black man..... you live in the ghetto and wear your pants hanging below your ass?

 

[DynaLo]

Sigh.... I don’t know about y’all, but I’m still waiting to see the peaceful transition of power happen from the 2016 election.

Looking over at the Leftists and “reap what you have sown” strongly comes to mind...

 

[k-town_king]

Wow.... stereotype much? You’re a black man..... you live in the ghetto and wear your pants hanging below your ass?

I am not stereotyping. Obesity and education are stats we have data on. Age and gender as well. Sagging pants isn't a statistic.

Out of Every 10 Trump Supporters, Nine Are White

So I guess to be exact I can say less than 15% of his supporters are men below 45. That is a fact.

25% are white women over 45 who didn't go to college.

He is even losing the young supporters he did have.

President Trump is losing support among young white working-class voters


Trump only has 54% of the white vote 9% of the black vote, and about 30% of the latino vote. He also has the older voters in each group.

The 2020 Trump-Biden matchup



Trump does not have many young supporters.

 

[Wafflestomper]

So yes they may be more represented, but it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things as the millions in California still have more power.

All this is saying essentially is that there are more people in California so it's okay if the weight of their votes are about a third of that of a person in Wyoming. Sorry, but to me that doesn't make sense without further argument. A person is still a person even in densely populated areas. Why does the space between them have any bearing on the weight of their vote for president?

 

[LouderVol]

All this is saying essentially is that there are more people in California so it's okay if the weight of their votes are about a third of that of a person in Wyoming. Sorry, but to me that doesn't make sense without further argument. A person is still a person even in densely populated areas. Why does the space between them have any bearing on the weight of their vote for president?

They dont matter. Not the person in Wyoming with 100 miles to the next person or the person in Cali only 10' away.

Anyway their vote counts the same. One is one. A person voting in wyoming gets one vote. Not three.

He is the president of the United States of America. Not the united people of america.

If california wants it people to count the same or more it needs a system that does so. It's not Wyomings fault or the Consitutions fault they chose a manner which devalued themselves.

And if you want to argue the pedantics of 3:1 why only stop at the vote? Why does a vote only matter to the counting? Does the will behind the vote stop, or end, with the casting of a vote? Do the losers not matter? A 3:1 popular victory means the ones behind the 1 vote mean nothing, while the ones behind the 3 do. The 1 isnt heard, a pure democracy places no value on the minority. Less value than the people of Caifornia alledgly have compared to Wyoming.

And you have still yet to address the rest of the inequity I brought up. You seem to be a democracy purist. Why do people who cant vote give more weight to those who can? It puts more value on one person over another. Simply because they live with people who arent allowed to vote. How is that fair? What should change? Dont count the illegals or dont assign representation based on their count? YOU want fair right?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

At least I feel better about the state of the forum with these poll results. However, the 5 that said no concern me.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

At least I feel better about the state of the forum with these poll results. However, the 5 that said no concern me.

I honestly don’t understand why someone wouldn’t support a fair election result?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Anyway their vote counts the same. One is one. A person voting in wyoming gets one vote. Not three.

I think you understood what I meant. Due to more electors per capita, the effective weight of a vote from a citizen of Wyoming is worth approximately three times that of a citizen of California.

If california wants it people to count the same or more it needs a system that does so. It's not Wyomings fault or the Consitutions fault they chose a manner which devalued themselves.

I'm sure Wyoming and other small (or conservative) states are just jumping up and down to make it more equitable. If CA had the same number of electors per capita as Wyoming Hillary would be president right now.

And if you want to argue the pedantics of 3:1 why only stop at the vote? Why does a vote only matter to the counting? Does the will behind the vote stop, or end, with the casting of a vote? Do the losers not matter? A 3:1 popular victory means the ones behind the 1 vote mean nothing, while the ones behind the 3 do. The 1 isnt heard, a pure democracy places no value on the minority. Less value than the people of Caifornia alledgly have compared to Wyoming.

I'm not advocating for majority rule. The minority still has representation in congress, remember? Arbitrarily giving the minority an advantage doesn't make any more sense to me than majority rule though. If the ideas of the minority are actually better then they should be able to convince others and become the majority, no?

And you have still yet to address the rest of the inequity I brought up. You seem to be a democracy purist. Why do people who cant vote give more weight to those who can? It puts more value on one person over another. Simply because they live with people who arent allowed to vote. How is that fair? What should change? Dont count the illegals or dont assign representation based on their count? YOU want fair right?

But didn't you already say that the states shouldn't have allowed something in the constitution that isn't fair? That one vote is one vote? Illegals aren't eligible to vote so it should be just fine, right? Regardless, and like I said previously, take away the estimated 2.2 million illegal immigrants from the population of California and the problem is still there. Smaller states like Wyoming, and I think most other states, have a higher number of electors per capita. Why should we keep the system like this, other than the fact that it continues to over-represent conservatives?

 

[0nelilreb]

I think you understood what I meant. Due to more electors per capita, the effective weight of a vote from a citizen of Wyoming is worth approximately three times that of a citizen of California.



I'm sure Wyoming and other small (or conservative) states are just jumping up and down to make it more equitable. If CA had the same number of electors per capita as Wyoming Hillary would be president right now.



I'm not advocating for majority rule. The minority still has representation in congress, remember? Arbitrarily giving the minority an advantage doesn't make any more sense to me than majority rule though. If the ideas of the minority are actually better then they should be able to convince others and become the majority, no?



But didn't you already say that the states shouldn't have allowed something in the constitution that isn't fair? That one vote is one vote? Illegals aren't eligible to vote so it should be just fine, right? Regardless, and like I said previously, take away the estimated 2.2 million illegal immigrants from the population of California and the problem is still there. Smaller states like Wyoming, and I think most other states, have a higher number of electors per capita. Why should we keep the system like this, other than the fact that it continues to over-represent conservatives?

If we only had a way to change the constitution. I understand the discussion but it’s redundant and if the majority wants to change or amend the constitution , it’s laid out really straight forward how to do it .

 

[Wafflestomper]

If we only had a way to change the constitution. I understand the discussion but it’s redundant and if the majority wants to change or amend the constitution , it’s laid out really straight forward how to do it .

The majority of people or the majority of their representatives? It takes two-thirds rather than a simple majority but we again run into a similar problem in amending the constitution. Small states are over-represented.

 

[LouderVol]

I think you understood what I meant. Due to more electors per capita, the effective weight of a vote from a citizen of Wyoming is worth approximately three times that of a citizen of California.



I'm sure Wyoming and other small (or conservative) states are just jumping up and down to make it more equitable. If CA had the same number of electors per capita as Wyoming Hillary would be president right now.



I'm not advocating for majority rule. The minority still has representation in congress, remember? Arbitrarily giving the minority an advantage doesn't make any more sense to me than majority rule though. If the ideas of the minority are actually better then they should be able to convince others and become the majority, no?



But didn't you already say that the states shouldn't have allowed something in the constitution that isn't fair? That one vote is one vote? Illegals aren't eligible to vote so it should be just fine, right? Regardless, and like I said previously, take away the estimated 2.2 million illegal immigrants from the population of California and the problem is still there. Smaller states like Wyoming, and I think most other states, have a higher number of electors per capita. Why should we keep the system like this, other than the fact that it continues to over-represent conservatives?

A fair number of those blue states in the NE are 3 vote or 4. It's not just a red problem.

I am fine with the system because it works as a republic. As intended by the Consitution.

You, and others, have an issue because you THINK we are a democracy. We arent. The EC isnt a democractic system based on the population. Period. You keep trying to bury the lead, but it is still there. Just because you refuse to accept that fact doesnt make it morally wrong. 1 EC from Wyoming matters just as much as one EC vote does from california. In this REPUBLIC that is what matters.

At this point you are being intellectually dishonest to claim the system favors someone without addressing the actual vote that matters, the EC. It's the only one that matters in the presidential election.

And most of your other suppositions are incorrect as well. The system places no value on the minority, outside Maine and Nebraska. Trump got 31% of the California vote but none of the EC. And for most states that holds true. And you shouldnt need to convince everyone, the Consititution protects controversy and disagreement. There will always be a minority, and just because they are one doesnt make them any less worth representation. Winning shouldnt determine validity, it's completely arbitrary in any election based system. Good or great ideas get ignored because it's not the majority. And if you have ever dealt with people you should know you cant convince them they are wrong or should change their mind. And its largely due to a winner take all system of elections that cause that. Why compromise when you are the majority? You won a popularity contest, it doesnt mean anything more than being homecoming queen. Again look at the Constitution it's all about protecting controversy. Freedom of press, religion, assembly. That's all for the minority. Those that the majority think is wrong. Fair and speedy trials again protects the minority from the majority of the system. 2A just overthrew the world's best military very much a majoirty/minority issue. All the civil rights amendments were for the minorities. Literally and figuratively. It makes no sense for the right to be counted to stop at the ballot box.

 

[Ashevolle]

Tl;dr, The EC may actually favor larger states not smaller ones.

Not sure where to put this, and it indirectly impacts presidential elections and it seems we were having EC arguments in here.

Listened to part of an NPR segment on my drive home. It was talking about the transition of the black community from slaves to citizens, and all that happened with that. the various amendments, laws, and so forth. It even brought up the 3/5 compromise.

The question of who the census should count, and the representation in the House based on it. was brought up. during slave times the census counted slaves. however the north didn't think the slaves should count towards representation because they weren't represented citizens. It gave votes without representing the slaves. Unfair advantage to the large slave holding states. eventually they landed on the 3/5 compromise, its even in the constitution Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. infact it read that all "other people", not just slaves, were to count as 3/5. the 14th eventually over ruled this, to say that all personage is counted.

Per the Constitution everyone should be counted in the census. There is no restriction of citizenship or not. Per the Constitution everyone gets represented even if they don't vote 14th amendment.

reason I bring this up is the age old EC argument that was going on in here.

Not only do you have the citizen population vote representation in the EC difference, but you also have the non-citizens weighing that as well.

A state with more no-citizens is going to get more representation in the House of Representatives, which means they get more EC votes.

The normal argument is that this favors the small states because the 2 senate votes skews it in favor of the medium states 7-20 because of the math break downs(not the small 3 vote states).

But continuing that same line of thinking, the larger states get more representatives, taking away from the smaller states, because they have more non-citizens in them. U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 This weighs the scale back in favor of the large states. as you can see in the graphic in the link, the larger states have more illegal immigrants. Who are rightly counted in the census, and rightly effect Representation.

Now I haven't done the math, and not even sure how to begin breaking it down. But now it seems that the EC naturally favors both the mid size states as well as the larger states, over the small states. Well not actually "now", it always has. But the nation has always assumed that its the Wyomings being helped, but the math and the Constitution say otherwise.

A citizen in the 7-20, or the larger states, is probably more represented than a citizen in a smaller state.

Let the debate!

Wouldn't it only favor large states that also have a higher incidence of noncitizen residents (i.e., border states)? So, California and Texas for sure. Not so much for Pennsylvania and Ohio.

 

[LouderVol]

Wouldn't it only favor large states that also have a higher incidence of noncitizen residents (i.e., border states)? So, California and Texas for sure. Not so much for Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Like I said without doing the math I dont know who it favors beyond the link showing the numbers per state.

The point wasnt who it favors, or even if it favors; but instead that it exists and throws off the "pure democracy" aspect that was being argued.

I think for a republic it makes some sense. The people arent directly represented to begin with. So any factor helping one over the other doesnt matter. But if you want a situation where the popular vote matters I think there is more to take into account than just the EC population breakdown.

The EC was designed that very way. For more representation than pure population would dictate. That is not how our nation was founded.

 

[Wafflestomper]

A fair number of those blue states in the NE are 3 vote or 4. It's not just a red problem.

I am fine with the system because it works as a republic. As intended by the Consitution.

You, and others, have an issue because you THINK we are a democracy. We arent. The EC isnt a democractic system based on the population. Period. You keep trying to bury the lead, but it is still there. Just because you refuse to accept that fact doesnt make it morally wrong. 1 EC from Wyoming matters just as much as one EC vote does from california. In this REPUBLIC that is what matters.

At this point you are being intellectually dishonest to claim the system favors someone without addressing the actual vote that matters, the EC. It's the only one that matters in the presidential election.

And most of your other suppositions are incorrect as well. The system places no value on the minority, outside Maine and Nebraska. Trump got 31% of the California vote but none of the EC. And for most states that holds true. And you shouldnt need to convince everyone, the Consititution protects controversy and disagreement. There will always be a minority, and just because they are one doesnt make them any less worth representation. Winning shouldnt determine validity, it's completely arbitrary in any election based system. Good or great ideas get ignored because it's not the majority. And if you have ever dealt with people you should know you cant convince them they are wrong or should change their mind. And its largely due to a winner take all system of elections that cause that. Why compromise when you are the majority? You won a popularity contest, it doesnt mean anything more than being homecoming queen. Again look at the Constitution it's all about protecting controversy. Freedom of press, religion, assembly. That's all for the minority. Those that the majority think is wrong. Fair and speedy trials again protects the minority from the majority of the system. 2A just overthrew the world's best military very much a majoirty/minority issue. All the civil rights amendments were for the minorities. Literally and figuratively. It makes no sense for the right to be counted to stop at the ballot box.

I'm intellectually dishonest but you've put words in my mouth, are begging the question, and have moved the goalposts. First of all, no one has granted that the U.S. is a republic instead of a democracy. Second, is there anything in either of these definitions (i.e., democracy and republic) that makes them mutually exclusive? Third, is there anything in the definition of either one that requires or precludes an electoral college? If we aren't required to have one by virtue of being a republic, why do we still, aside from the difficulties associated with changing it? You seem to think that a popular vote for president would ignore completely the voice of the minority but at the same time state that the electoral college already does that with the exception of two states. You can imagine my confusion.

There is only one president, so the candidate who wins is most likely going to be either democrat or republican, meaning that the party that loses (and everyone else) is going to feel marginalized. You seem to be saying that we need to protect the rights of the minority, which I'd agree with, but why is a popular vote for president going to jeopardize that? When should the minority win and why? Why don't we have such a system for, say, senators where sometimes a democrat is elected in Tennessee despite losing the popular vote? Would that be fair in your opinion? After all, we don't want the minority to be marginalized. I'm guessing if the shoe were on the other foot in this argument it would be the republicans complaining and the democrats doing mental gymnastics to defend the EC.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm intellectually dishonest but you've put words in my mouth, are begging the question, and have moved the goalposts. First of all, no one has granted that the U.S. is a republic instead of a democracy. Second, is there anything in either of these definitions (i.e., democracy and republic) that makes them mutually exclusive? Third, is there anything in the definition of either one that requires or precludes an electoral college? If we aren't required to have one by virtue of being a republic, why do we still, aside from the difficulties associated with changing it? You seem to think that a popular vote for president would ignore completely the voice of the minority but at the same time state that the electoral college already does that with the exception of two states. You can imagine my confusion.

There is only one president, so the candidate who wins is most likely going to be either democrat or republican, meaning that the party that loses (and everyone else) is going to feel marginalized. You seem to be saying that we need to protect the rights of the minority, which I'd agree with, but why is a popular vote for president going to jeopardize that? When should the minority win and why? Why don't we have such a system for, say, senators where sometimes a democrat is elected in Tennessee despite losing the popular vote? Would that be fair in your opinion? After all, we don't want the minority to be marginalized. I'm guessing if the shoe were on the other foot in this argument it would be the republicans complaining and the democrats doing mental gymnastics to defend the EC.

No one has to "grant" that we are a republic. Our founding document sets that. Not sure what your contention is.

The two terms are only exclusive in regards to this country. I am not discussing the generalities of a republic or democracy. I am discussing the specifics of our republic.

Again I am not talking about the generalities of a republic or a democracy and their relation to an EC. Our republic has an EC. As such I am discussing the merits/drawbacks of how the EC works in OUR system.

I am not moving goalposts. I have always been talking about our system. And I have brought up the various peculiarities of it and the various ways it may favor one group over another. The democracy purists have an issue with one aspect that skews the population representation. But have still yet to express displeasure with or really even acknowledge anything that further skews that representation.

I am asking why. Either the skewing is a fundamental issue, no matter the source, or it isnt. If it isnt it could be any number of other issues, personally what I have seen is that it's a political issue. It doesnt favor my side, so it's wrong. I feel that is dishonest of the situation. Because we are a republic where one popular vote may not equal one other popular vote. The simplest reason it doesn matter in our system is because that is not what our system tallies at the end.

 

[Wafflestomper]

No one has to "grant" that we are a republic. Our founding document sets that. Not sure what your contention is.

Re-read what I said. "INSTEAD of democracy." The two terms are not mutually exclusive and the U.S. indeed practices a form of democracy--a representative democracy.

The two terms are only exclusive in regards to this country. I am not discussing the generalities of a republic or democracy. I am discussing the specifics of our republic.

And our republic is a representative democracy. For some reason you have in mind that all forms of democracy necessarily involve a strict majority rule philosophy in which the minority goes unrepresented.

Again I am not talking about the generalities of a republic or a democracy and their relation to an EC. Our republic has an EC. As such I am discussing the merits/drawbacks of how the EC works in OUR system.

Yes, that's what we were discussing until you went off on a tangent about the U.S. not being a democracy.

I am not moving goalposts.

But you are. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. One minute you're worried about the rights of the minority being trampled and the next you're claiming that the EC actually doesn't protect them. You want to partition the different moving parts of this system such that your claims become true, when if examined holistically, they may not be.

I have always been talking about our system. And I have brought up the various peculiarities of it and the various ways it may favor one group over another. The democracy purists have an issue with one aspect that skews the population representation. But have still yet to express displeasure with or really even acknowledge anything that further skews that representation.

I am asking why. Either the skewing is a fundamental issue, no matter the source, or it isnt. If it isnt it could be any number of other issues, personally what I have seen is that it's a political issue. It doesnt favor my side, so it's wrong. I feel that is dishonest of the situation. Because we are a republic where one popular vote may not equal one other popular vote. The simplest reason it doesn matter in our system is because that is not what our system tallies at the end.

But I did consider this. You want me to copy and paste my response again? I'm guessing if you subtracted all the illegal immigrants in the U.S. from only the population of California for the purpose of representatives, Wyoming and other small states would still be over-represented in comparison. If California had the same per capita number of electors as Wyoming then they would have roughly 240 electors instead of the 55 they currently have. Regardless, even if you did have a valid point, this is a problem exacerbated by the electoral college system rather than being mitigated by it.

 

[Weezy]

Pelosi talking 25th amendment. Democrats have yet to accept the results of the 2016 election. How do people not see this? Like, I'm not a big Republican. I just hate the media and Democrats. They are attempting to be the CCP.

 

[Volsfaninva917]

Pelosi talking 25th amendment. Democrats have yet to accept the results of the 2016 election. How do people not see this? Like, I'm not a big Republican. I just hate the media and Democrats. They are attempting to be the CCP.

Do as I say not as I do

 

[LouderVol]

Re-read what I said. "INSTEAD of democracy." The two terms are not mutually exclusive and the U.S. indeed practices a form of democracy--a representative democracy.



And our republic is a representative democracy. For some reason you have in mind that all forms of democracy necessarily involve a strict majority rule philosophy in which the minority goes unrepresented.



Yes, that's what we were discussing until you went off on a tangent about the U.S. not being a democracy.



But you are. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. One minute you're worried about the rights of the minority being trampled and the next you're claiming that the EC actually doesn't protect them. You want to partition the different moving parts of this system such that your claims become true, when if examined holistically, they may not be.



But I did consider this. You want me to copy and paste my response again? I'm guessing if you subtracted all the illegal immigrants in the U.S. from only the population of California for the purpose of representatives, Wyoming and other small states would still be over-represented in comparison. If California had the same per capita number of electors as Wyoming then they would have roughly 240 electors instead of the 55 they currently have. Regardless, even if you did have a valid point, this is a problem exacerbated by the electoral college system rather than being mitigated by it.

Only responding to the last as we are otherwise talking past each other.

I personally dont care one way or the other. I have a problem with the whole idea of democracy. Including our system. However I do believe in the internal consistency of our Consitution and the republic.

I am not making a personal statement on how i feel regarding the values behind the EC beyond saying its internally consistent/supported. Instead I am saying that the pro democracy crowd arent consistent in the arguments about what matters to them inside the system. I am attacking their arguments as in this case it's a bad one.

I dont care about democracy period. Minority, majority, republic, representative democracy etc. But within our system it's apparently wrong to have a difference between the values behind the EC. And to me that would mean ANY and ALL are issue. Its bothers the Democracy pushers about the population of the states matters. If they are consistent they would likewise be bothered by the census and representatives counting everyone and not just citizens. And maybe more so because not only does it shift the value behind the EC but it also it's from outsiders.

Based on them caring about the relative value of a states population vs another but not the value of a states population vs not population I am surmising that their preference is based purely on politics. And not that they have a Fundamental problem with the base fact of their being weighted values at all. Because if they did have an issue with their being any weighted value to the EC votes they would likewise attack the fact the "all others" change the scales as well. Even if to a lesser degree the problem exists, and if one is actually is a purist it should matter.