Want to abolish the EC? Please read this

Well, that’s demonstrably false. Wyoming has tons of wide open unpopulated empty space, and a vote there carries 3 times the weight of a vote in California.

 

3: There is no malapportionment. The Senate represents the States. Not the Country.

4: It was made difficult for a reason. The Founders wanted to make sure that it wasn't changed willy nilly. That the vast majority of the Country wanted whatever change was made. Not just half the country. The Founders were against Mob Rule. Which is why we have a Democratic Republic form of government and not just a straight Democracy. They wanted to make sure that the majority did not step on the Rights of the minority. And while difficult, it obviously is not "virtually impossible". The Constitution has been amended 27 times.

 

Unpopulated means no people. Without people that land has no influence on the elections whatsoever.

 

I just showed you otherwise.

 

You have shown me that unpopulated means that there are people living there? How is that possible?

 

The part where you strongly implied that the only "actual citizens" resided in those few counties. And no unpopulated empty space has any say. Take a damn civics lesson and stop being ignorant of how our government works.

 

I’ve shown you that unpopulated wide open empty space carries 3 times the weight per vote than ca

 

Ah, so a strawman.

 

No strawman. It's right there in your post.

 

If you want to make a point, at least state it correctly.

My wife and I own 46 acres. My neighbor and his wife own over a thousand acres. Since unpopulated empty land votes, does that mean my neighbor's vote counts nearly twenty two times as much as mine? After all, they have a lot more unpopulated empty space than we do.

 

No, it’s your strawman

 

I’ve repeatedly done so.

[WUOTE]My wife and I own 46 acres. My neighbor and his wife own over a thousand acres. Since unpopulated empty land votes, does that mean my neighbor's vote counts nearly twenty two times as much as mine? After all, they have a lot more unpopulated empty space than we do.[/QUOTE]
Oh look, a strawman

 

How much unpopulated empty space does Rhode Island have? They have four electoral votes for just over a million people crammed into 1200 square miles.. California has 55 electoral votes for nearly forty million people in about 164,000 square miles. Rhode Island is more densely populated than California. Wouldn't that indicate that it is not the empty unpopulated land which is counted?

 

The reason some states have more electoral votes is because all states have two senators regardless of the size of the state. There are 435 representatives in the house divided among 50 states. Therefore the states have an average of 8.7 electoral votes because of the house of representatives. Any state with eight or less representatives has a numerical advantage. Any state with more than nine or more representatives has a numerical disadvantage. Using this logic, 33 states have more electoral votes per capita than average and 17 states have less electoral votes per capita than average. There are about as many blue states included in those with a numerical advantage as red states. It is not a given that republicans will always have an advantage because of the electoral votes.

 

Number of votes cast by unpopulated land = 0
Number of votes cast by ca voter = 1

Rahl math. 0 x 3 > 1 x 1

 

you don't seem to know what a strawman is

 

intentional obtuseness noted.

 

I'm sure your notebook is full of all sorts interesting things. I'm not sure what that has to do with your argument that unpopulated land votes.

The votes of minority factions, on the other hand, are weighted. It's one of those checks and balances things Madison was rambling about in the Federalist. Do you have that fact in your notebook?

 

Madison realized that Rahl's argument for pure democracy was nonsense. He was deeply concerned about creating a system of government that protected the liberty and rights of minority factions. It was a foundational principal of the party he used to represent. One might say that the democrats used to support and protect minority viewpoints. Now the EC abolitionists are all about majority rule. Clearly they don't feel the same way.

Of course, Rahls history book doesn't have that fact in it.

 

There are a surprising number of blue states in which their vote counts considerably more than in California.

 

Financial independence would greatly hurt smaller states who don’t have an abundance of natural resources and agriculture the way large states like California or Texas do.

States with relaxed gun purchasing laws do impact other states. Most black market weapons are purchased legally in one state then resold in other locations with stricter gun laws.

We need federal reformation on drug laws. End the war on drugs, decriminalize them, and institute addiction help centers. Canada and Portugal have done policies like this with extreme success, and the initial investment pays back a great deal in saving money and resources in the long term.

I’m more pro labor than a lot of people, so I cringe when states try to reduce rights that the labor movement of the 30s and 40s worked so hard for. Federal and state governments should not be involved in undermining unions. I believe this should be worked out within the relationship between employees and employers.

The fact is the policy of one state does affect neighboring states. I appreciate the concept of independent states, but it does not work that way in a practical sense. Ideology only gets you so far, at some point you have to deal with realism.

 

First off, conflating the election of a president with pure democracy is silly. Unless you think of the president as a supreme dictator.

Also, when the framers were discussing popular vote, they were talking about Congress electing the president.

Madison was also never much of a fan of the electoral college, he saw it as corruptive institution. He agreed to it as a compromise with the slave states, but regretted it.

 

Because he did not think it was representational of the faction he was concerned about. His solution was division by district, not winner take all.

https://www.constitution.org/jm/18260130_taylor.htm

 

Strawman

Affirmative action should be opposed at all levels. 1 voter should equal 1 vote.

 

Which is just as wrong as a red state. Every vote should count exactly the same. Geography and political affiliation is irrelevant.