Interesting point. I think this would effectively mitigate some of the negative consequences of gerrymandering as well.
Democracy will die if the electoral college isn t abandoned
- Thread starter sadiehawkins
- Start date
Why would we say that? I don't want it flat out removed and haven't said so ever.
But, I am slightly interested to hear what you think might happen?
It's worked just fine for 235 years...no need to change.
I get the feeling that this would truly nightmare fuel for the GOP and is part of why they push the message to their voters that the EC is a bulwark against oppression. The lions share of any new house seats would fall to the DNC immediately.
That's pretty funny considering the only thing democrats and republicans seem to agree on is that things are destabilizing.
Than the federal government should have little to no direct relationship with us. Taxes should run through the state government to the Fed, the Fed shouldn't be providing money to the states for everything from infrastructure to disaster relief to aiding the poorest citizens. Only thing the fed should be theoretically funding the states for is providing arms and equipment to it's militia.
That attitude is what has caused many other great civilizations to fall too. "We've been doing it this way for hundreds of years, it's worked great for us thus far, why change?"
The world changes, you either change with it or it leaves you in the dust.
Trad provided more justification than you did with reference to known constitutional framers’ thinking (protection & representation of the minority).
You on the other hand provided nothing but a passing opinion.
Maybe it is you that needs to read more?
Damn, people like you are dumb. The EC is never going away nor should it.
One change that should be made is only US citizens should count towards number of representatives. Maybe include permanent residents but no way should illegals be included.
I suggested he read source materials. Is that too vague for you to take action on or are you suggesting that this issue must be fully fleshed out on this particular forum?
F@cking Constitution. Always right about some things and wrong about others, huh?
They do not count. That is just a fact. Trump received 0 votes from California.
Of course there are changes how is that relevant?
My point is that there are conservative voters in California and liberal voters in Arkansas. But these people are basically silenced by the electoral process. Furthermore this process is why we only get 2 choices.
I think there is a very legitimate case to be made that would exclude illegals. Would love to see it taken to court.
It is specifically in the Constitution that all persons should be counted in the census and that Representative votes be apportioned based on those numbers.
Separately, a quiz: where among the states did CA rank in electoral votes when it was admitted to the union?
Never forget the t-axis.
Says you, not all constitutional scholars agree. As a matter of fact, there are many who disagree. I’d like to find out which side is correct.
Two ways of assessing the OP’s intent:
1. They know this but this board is full of bots/trolls who put this 💩 out there anyway and no one pushes back on the steaming pile they post.
2. OP truly is an idiot who slept through high school civics and has lots of company on here who did so as well. You know, the greasy haired kids who sat in the back of the class and always wore the dirty plaid shirts that smelled like ciggies? Or weed?
i'm all for the electoral college, but the numbers should be consistent state to state, based on population
right now wyoming has 1 electoral vote per 144K people and florida has 1 electoral vote per 536K people
electoral votes are (at least indirectly) determined by population right now...let's just make it consistent
right now wyoming has 1 electoral vote per 144K people and florida has 1 electoral vote per 536K people
electoral votes are (at least indirectly) determined by population right now...let's just make it consistent
Not "says you", says 50+ years of national policy. I understand you're telling me what you desire, but you don't seem to understand that I am not giving my opinion...just citing how sh!t is done in reality.
I think that's a lot more debatable than it being "one of the core principals of what made the United States the greatest nation in the world".
Let's not forget that it was an immediate failure in the Adam's Jefferson election.
I do think there is sentiment for adjusting those numbers. It may not happen the way some favor or not on their timetable but I would not be surprised to see some modification.
Those who were awake in American History will remember learning when the Senate was originally composed of men (no women) who were appointed by their state legislature. Not by a popular vote. Somehow the Republic has survived.
You are giving your opinion. As far as I’m aware this has never been challenged at the Supreme Court. I’d like to see what they’d say.
Fwiw, I would very interested to se how the current court went about it as well. The concept of an orginalist could certainly be put to the test.
It's the only thing that keeps the states in the middle of the country relevant in terms of selecting a president.
The only reason anyone wants to get rid of it is because they see that Dems have won the popular vote for a number of years (thanks to more people moving to cities).
It's obviously short-sighted to do away with it, because in 12 years when the popular vote shifts the other way, Dems will be screaming to put the electoral college back in place and Rs will be saying 'no you wanted it this way.' meanwhile the Iowans, Hoosiers and Nebraskans of the world are totally forgotten and ignored. You think you have terrible options now, just wait until you have terrible options who don't even have to pretend to care about what you want.
The Electoral College is outdated and our country has outgrown its original purpose and intent. The founding fathers fully expected the Constitution to be revised over time but settled on the system by political default in their age, they had no intent of creating a Constitution that would remain unchanged and static over the course of generations.
Not a single US state's executive position (governor) is elected under such an archaic system. Why? Because the SCOTUS determined time and again that it's unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment. They're all elected by popular vote.
Some states attempted to devise an electoral college system for their state senators to allow small counties/districts to have the same amount of representative influence as larger more populous counties/districts and once again SCOTUS determined that it's unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment. One person, one vote.
Not a single US state's executive position (governor) is elected under such an archaic system. Why? Because the SCOTUS determined time and again that it's unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment. They're all elected by popular vote.
Some states attempted to devise an electoral college system for their state senators to allow small counties/districts to have the same amount of representative influence as larger more populous counties/districts and once again SCOTUS determined that it's unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment. One person, one vote.
It doesn't keep states in the middle of the country relevant in selecting a president. The majority of states are ignored. The focus is entirely on a small number of swing states.
You are incorrect in suggesting that criticism of the system is a recent phenomena. It has been criticized from the beginning and there have been 700 proposed amendments to modify or abolish the electoral college.
The obvious part is the dems have won the popular vote every yr since the 90s that is like 30yrs and u say it ll shift in 12. We could only be so lucky to have a population shift to rural states. Need more dems in those states. What great policy will the Republicans propose to cause this shift? Maybe if you made everybody a farmer and we could collect our yearly subsidies while vacationing in Mexico bitching about the illegals mexicans working on our farms.
The way that Cali and NY have been losing population over the last decade shows that shifts in people density are unpredictable and may become more commonplace in future.
years.
Does Iowa want to become fully irrelevant? Nebraska? Kansas?
Never jump to a new lily pad unless you know what’s already there.
That's not because of the electoral college. It's more because of vote buying.
For you, for others the trend of Presidents getting elected while losing the popular vote by millions seems to be a concern.
Not sure why it should be, given that the rules are very clear going in. Usually the rule set tends to set what expectations are reasonable.
Congratulations on California, NY, and Illinois though. A nice base of electoral votes to start from.
