What's wrong with elections based off of the Popular Vote?

We usually see complaints like this when "My candidate would have won by a popular vote". However if your candidate wins by the electoral college method, then the method is the right method.

There has always been a power conflict between large states and small states. To keep things in balance, the government was created with a house of representatives with numbers based on the population of the state, and the senate, which represents all states equally. The electoral college serves a similar purpose.

A pretty good explanation is at this link:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/06/why_we_need_the_electoral_college_132499.html

 

Who denigrated their paid contribution? I wasn't even referring to farmland as vacant land (it isn’t vacant, it’s agricultural — vacant means empty). I have family that are farmers, it’s hard work and long hours even with advancements in technology unless it’s a mega-farm where the bulk is automated.

Let’s take the state with the highest disproportionate amount of power, Wyoming, vs the state with the least, New York. Every Wyoming vote is worth four New Yorker votes. Wyoming is also almost 50% federal land (vacant). Why should the power of a vote change that drastically depending where you are located in the US?

It is absolutely a matter of their vote being worth more or less. The president is the highest raking US official. The position should represent us all, not some more than others. We should all have equal weight in the election or we should just let congress elect the position — at least that would be more representative of the people with the senate representing the states and the house representing the people, we would have to make tons of other changes for this to be viable however. States should not be allowed to have disproportionate say in both the presidency as well as in congress. Especially not when it is just benefiting a single party.

The ideal solution definitely isn’t counting people as less than slaves were counted. That’s for sure.

 

Uh, that's the point of protecting minority votes.

 

Funny part from your source “Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal” — how many deals has trump unilaterally ended? Guess that line no longer applies... a deal is in fact not a deal.

Carrying on they surmise that removing the EC would present issues with no candidate receiving plurality support — even though that happens now and ranked choice voting would eliminate that issue completely — or that too many candidates could run (the horror of not ceding power to the duopoly we have currently!)

And surprise surprise it was written by a conservative think tank.
Never would have guessed...

If you believe that’s a “good explanation” of why we need to keep it it further solidifies in my mind that y’all are just desperately grasping at any excuse because you don’t really have one — all in an effort to maintain control over a country that no longer aligns with your “values” — whatever those may be at the moment.

 

So you support affirmative action then, yes?

 

Not sure what race has to do with it.

 

Despite what anyone may have asserted about the Founders and the poor neglected country folk in fly-over country, times have changed.

1. When the Constitution was written there was very poor possibilities for travel and communication from Kansas to Washington.

2. The federal government makes laws that have a national impact. States, counties, and cities make laws that apply to them. So the poor neglected country folk can blame their local governments for policies they don't like. The federal government has little control over local politics.

3. I deserve to be represented no less than country folks in Kansas.

I'd like someone who wants to keep the electoral college show what federal laws have such unacceptable and unfair effects on the fly-over country folks.

 

Having the president elected by state rather than by individual has been serving us well for a long time.

 

It is also a matter of them fairly represented. You can't have it both ways.

 

I suppose policies like the clean water act that remove property holder use rights, that don't in any way effect folks who live in cities, but only effect large land holders in the flyovers was a result of their "local" representatives? Hardly.

 

"The Clean Water Act does not directly address groundwater contamination. Groundwater protection provisions are included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Superfund act."

"In the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress responded to the stormwater problem by defining industrial stormwaterdischargers and municipal separate storm sewer systems (often called "MS4") as point sources, and requiring them to obtain NPDES permits, by specific deadlines. The permit exemption for agricultural discharges continued"

Try again.

 

Because a true democracy always, always, leads to collapse.

People who dont pay taxes vote to raise taxes. People who dont have jobs vote for bills that kill jobs. People who dont run businesses vote for policies that strangle businesses.

And since the majority of this country is borderline retarded, allowing the masses to choose for themselves seems like a pretty dumb idea.

 

No, but there can certainly be checks put in place to review the elctoral college for balance at a given interval. say, every 10 years. make it a part of the census if needed.

 

But you seem to ignore that it has been the law of the land since long before your birth, and has served us well. I think you big complaint is that in this case, it allowed the defeat of you candidate. had you candidate won, it would be a good system..... Everything that goes your way is legitimate and good; anything that doesn't is crooked and bad. That's the liberal/democratic perspective, and sadly- character value at present.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

It is already done every ten years. States gain or lose representatives and electoral votes.

 

Then that is the will of the majority of Americans.

Are you saying a minority should chose our President?

Well, actually, that is what happened in 2016, and we look we got, an incompetent, arrogant a__hole who panders to communist dictators. Trump's fans often say that Americans chose Trump. That is false. Trump was elected by a little bit more than 25% of the electorate. He was even outvoted by Hillary. Now that is bad.

 

The Popular vote - that is, the people - have never elected the President - indeed, you don't even have the right to vote for President.
Why?
Because in our federal Repiblic, the states choose the head of the United States, and rightly so.

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

 

It seems Trump's fans have overlooked this post. Even Just A Man ignored my response to his post.

Why do Trump fans regard states as people? Using your example that state would have the majority of the people living in it. The majority of the people would decide who the next President is. Do you have a problem with that?

Take a close look at the Electoral College. The number of electors a state has is determined by the population of the states. When you do the math, a farmer in Montana gets 1 1/2 times the vote of a teacher or doctor in California.

Is that fair?

 

Aww... still no one responding to your nonsense, eh?

 

Affirmative action seeks to protect minorities in the same way you just stated the electoral college seeks to protect citizens of less dense states … by making them unequal and worth more than other people.

So you support affirmative action, yes?

I don’t support either — just seeing if you have a consistent narrative

 

How so? The electoral college has overridden the voice of the people 5 times in the history of the country, two times out of the past three presidents. Many people — even conservatives — would agree Bush 2 wasn’t really a good president.

So how has it served us well as a country?
This pretty much boils down to it serves your political agenda — trump even admits the EC is a perverse instrument to subvert democracy

 

Really?
In which election did the person with the majority of the popular vote not win the election?

 

Because 4-5 states doesn't speak for the entire country. Are leftist children taught growing up to have a voice in family matters or are they all brought up with Daddy TELLING them how they will live their lives?

 

They would be fairly represented by being treated equally.
Multiplying their vote by a factor of four is not fair representation.
It is unequal representation.

Feel free to go back and answer the questions you edited out.

Actually nevermind, I am putting to much effort into an individual that cut out an entire discussion to only copy a single sentence. Zero integrity. If you are unable to discuss the point as presented your narrative is flawed and you should perhaps review it — not that you will. Take care