Can States choose to distribute electoral votes according to the popular vote?

I know "the thinking" behind it. The constitution would never have been ratified if they had not included it.

But, to the unthinking person's way of thinking...we should not allow one person/one vote.

Okay...you have a right to your bizarre thinking.

And others can think of ways to ameliorate the injustice that thinking engenders.

 

Not sure what you are saying here...but what better way to elect "someone who is supposed to represent the thoughts and ideas of every citizen"....than to allow every citizen an equal vote???

 

Because not every vote is influenced equally.

The concerns of someone living in downtown Los Angeles are significantly different than someone living in Kansas City, or Mason City, Iowa. The ability of politicians in high population states to influence people via legislation and action is significant.

California is the perfect example. A massive number of people are dependent on the state government to survive. Of course they are going to vote to keep the money and assistance flowing.

Do you think the people living in the dense population centers on the East and West Coast give a damn about issues involved in Farming or the flow of goods to market, or any other issue that is important to those living in less populated rural states?

Hillary lost because she ignored the heartland of the country. Do you think future politicians would give citizens living there the time of day in a popular vote election?

Our Founding Fathers recognize the danger of the tyranny of the majority when selecting the President of the United States. Given the lack of familiarity with the Constitution by so many who support the New Democratic Party platform, I'm not surprised they want to abolish the Electoral College, and ignore the purpose it exists.

 

Well some of trolling is a diversionary tactic. I do get in trouble from it for time to time .

I thought I was posting the picture of a girl in a bikini on the beach under an umbrella

I think she is gerrymandering's girlfriend

 

So you are saying that in the interest of FAIRNESS...

...some people should be given 5 times as many votes as others?

Are you thinking this through?

There are other disadvantaged constituencies...should those people be given 5 votes apiece also. Jews, for instance, comprise less than 2% of he population...and Jews have different concerns from Christians. Agnostics are a significant minority of the population...and agnostics have different concerns from non-agnostics.

Should Jews and agnostics also be each given 5 votes to even things out?

What are you saying?

 

I'm saying electing someone to a single office that represents everyone living in the United States must be done in a way that addresses the wants and needs of everyone, not the just the majority of people living in small portions of the country.

Why don't you touch on the California example? Socialist Progressives secure the Latino vote by creating a sanctuary to their illegal alien family members. Socialist Progressives hand out close to 30% of the total all States spend on social welfare programs, while having roughly 10% of the Nations population. All these efforts buy votes. That is exactly the scenario our Founding Fathers discussed when the EC was debated and adopted for electing the President.

I'm left to wonder why the anti-EC people think so little of the wants and needs of people living in such large portions of the country.

And when you are struggling to make an argument, try leaving religion out of it. It's makes the result that much worse.

 

Frank, pursue why the founders chose the electoral college to begin with.

States are the issue Frank. Not trying to blend the voters of Vermont to wed them to California.

See a state as a sovereign entity. How can it be sovereign? It has a leader, the governor. A congress, courts and all needed for a complete government.

So the deal never was over what loosely gets called the popular vote, but the system to total support among the states. Take Trump, he got 30 of the 50 states. How could Hillary prevail with but 20 states. The electoral college saved this country from having her.

 

You can't even admit to your stupidity after you're exposed. Typical lefty.

 

States can decide how to use their electors. They can use this to effectively end our archaic electoral college system and force politicians to campaign in every state rather than spend 94% of their time in just 12.

 

You can get extra neurons at Walmart. They are in the Trump aisle

 

so it boils down to you want the brain-dead rednecks to have a say in what goes on on their farms but not what goes on in the city? I hope that's not offencive I don't think there's any brain dead rednex on this siteI

It seems really easy one person one vote

It's kind of interesting in Vermont and Wyoming your vote counts three times more than a vote in California or Texas

Then if you're rich like Donald you can own properties in Vermont and Wyoming and you can vote vote in both States

Walla . You have cast six votes for the president

Bada Bing

 

Nice word salad. Should go good with some cheese.

You ARE saying that in the interest of FAIRNESS...you want to give some people 5 times the voting power as others.

Good grief, man. What does it take to make that sound reasonable.

 

So you are another one saying that in the interest of FAIRNESS...we should give some people 5 votes...while allowing others to have just one.

Sad!

 

One-person-one-vote it's just not that hard aa concep to grasp .I'm wondering why the forefathers didn't know it?

 

All states do award their electoral vote via the popular vote. 48 states have a winner take all, 2 states, Nebraska and Maine award one electoral vote per winner of a congressional district plus the remaining two to the winner of the state.

Each state legislature can award their electoral votes as they deem fit. There doesn't even have to be an election. The state legislature could decide without one how to award their electoral votes. This was done prior to the civil war in quite a lot of states.

Personally, I don't want the electoral college done away with. It gives each state a say in who will be president based on each states population. The number of representatives each state has plus two for the senators. I would however like to see a change. Winner take all is fine with me as long as the winner receives 50% plus one vote. In 2016 there were 14 states where the plurality winner took all the electoral votes. States in which the candidate failed to receive 50% plus one. In that instance when no candidate receives a majority, 50% plus one vote, I would like to see those states go by the congressional district method with the plurality winner receiving the remaining two electoral votes.

 

Again sir the fact of the matter is that the only states who have submitted to this tyranny are those who voted blue and there against freedom last presidential election. What will happen in any of these states that try this horse crap, will be that said states electors for the winning candidate in that state if it does not match the candidate who got the majority of the popular will sue and therefore the election will be tied up in the courts for a while before scotus tells you to go pound sand. and awards that states electors to those who got the majority in that state.

 

No Frank. You said that, not me. I believe after something like 8 years working it out, the founders came up with a good solution. So states got to be counted fairly. Can you name even one state that did not get counted fairly? Me, I hate the outcome of CA but I would not say it was not fair.

 

Its amazing when the violent left defaults to trump like he is their new messiah.

 

sigh... Sometimes I really think my friends on the left are being intentionally obtuse.

Do you know how many people in Oklahoma voted for Dianne Feinstein? Yet she never wakes up a single day without wondering how she can take our guns from us, before being escorted to her limo that is protected by armed guards...

Do you know anything at all about how Presidents are elected? Anythinng at all?

hint: we individuals don't elect presidents. They are elected by states that have electoral college votes apportioned according to population (soon to be according to citizens I hope). You don't have any say whatsoever, and neither do I, just as Jim Bob from Oklahoma has absolutely ZERO say in whether or not Feinstein gets elected to the senate.

Seriously, sometimes I weep for the complete and total ignorance on almost constant display here.

 

maybe because they understood the role that the federal government plays, and you don't?

hint: If you want ur socialism, try to think locally. don't like guns? vote locally. want ur socialized healthcare?

can you guess what the answer to your predicament might be?

hint: vote locally.

 

And we are supposed to be worried about russia hacking our elections, lol..

 

THEY had a reason for the Electoral College...just as THEY had a reason for allowing for slavery...and for denying the right to vote to women, for instance.

But we of the modern day should be done with that.

An amendment to abolish the college seems out of reach. This current effort to get enough states to agree to give all their electors to the winner of the popular vote...seems a reasonable, legal way around that problem.

 

States do not vote. People vote.

3,000,000 more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Trump...yet Trump is president.

If you do not see the unfairness of that...

...then essentially you ARE saying that you think IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS...some people should get votes that count 5 to 7 times as much as other people's votes.

 

Well then stop being so ignorant...because you are showing lots of it.

Yes, I know lots about elections...and about how the president gets elected.

The conversation here is about the unfairness of the Electoral College...and how the states can impact on that unfairness.

Try to deal with that...rather than complaining about ignorance while showing so much of it.

 

I think the left needs to be more honest about many things, one of them being this popular vote stuff when electing the President.

Based on the arguments and discussions I've read, this has nothing to do with one person, one vote. That's a fact because there is no acknowledgement of the problem of voter disenfranchisement that the EC corrects. Not even an attempt to discuss the valid aspects of it. So it's only about one thing. Selecting the President of the United States in perpetuity.

That should never be allowed to happen.