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

4-5 states would not be speaking for the country, the country would be speaking for itself. The majority.

 

Do you really feel like a resident of North Dakota will get the same consideration as residents of the larger states when they are primarily urban and he is rural and they have all the voting power?

You can take your insults and shove them where the sun don't shine. I answer questions which are important to me in the discussion.

 

Nice excuse for being a sore loser.
Fact is the electoral college makes sure that the majority cannot rule over the minority which is exactly the point of it.
I lived in Washington state mostvof my life, you know how demoralize it us to know that your vote doesn't count in presidential elections? Hell the election is over before my vote is even counted.
The majority doesn't get everything it wants. But a representation of all Americans does.

 

it protects us all from eventual collapse... each state/providence/county/city are of their own culture/needs and in order to protect that culture/needs we can not allow the two major cities to control the entire country... that said, i'd be in full agreement to abolish 'winner take all' from every state that employs it, even if that've meant 'killary' would have beat trump in the ec... at least that would have been fairer, each district counts as one vote, because each district is the island people chose to live in... each person shouldn't be their own island, it'd go against being a community...

 

Stop with the political agenda. You want to upend the way we manage elections to serve yours.

 

Moe than that...
Each of the 50 states is a sovereign entity that, when combined, makes up the United States.
The electoral college is the mechanism through which those 50 states choose the head of state and government.

The People are represented in the house, and as amended, the Senate; the President is not a representative of the people an thus, the people do not elect him.

This is as sound now as it was in 1787.

 

Until of, of course, the table is turned.

 

Big city dwellers and everyone else have very different lives and priorities. It makes perfect sense to try to even the playing field so both have a fair chance.

 

Yup that's why we have a electoral failsafe.. If you cant sway the minds of the majority of the countries and states then that party is certainly not the voice of a nation.

Sorry if you cant have it your way, would you like a trophy instead?

 

I’m not surprised you feel that the discussion or topic should cater to what you feel is important and screw everyone else.
That’s is the new Republican motto after-all and it is highly visible in this very thread with the ‘screw the majority we should make the rules’ mantra.

Strange how republicans use to be about facts and logic and now it’s just their emotional preferences.
Isn’t that ironic.

This is a place of discussion. Everyone’s ideas and thoughts are equally important (unless you live in a highly dense state and then your opinion is worth a quarter of others else’s apparently, right?). If you don’t like it you are perhaps at the wrong place.

Cheers

 

Hillary may have lost the popular vote had that been the metric of the office. She was a bad candidate. A really bad candidate.

Many people in highly partisan states don’t even bother to vote because their vote is completely wiped away. They have no voice at all over who their president is. Other people are counted as a quarter of a vote.

There has to be a better way.

 

What is my political agenda? You have no idea.

I want to upend elections because they are unjust. If your side wasn’t benefiting from it you would likely be saying the same. Luckily (or unluckily depending on how you see it), neither side represents me so I am not blinded by party over country.

Feel free to have some integrity and answer the fairly simple questions I asked.

 

There was a thread on this a while back. How to ban gerrymandering? More specifically, how do you tell gerrymandering from legitimate redistricting? Or do you just ban redistricting?
I suggested we break the nation up into hexagonal districts and leave them that way for all time... but its by no means a perfect solution.

 

I will put it as simply as I know how. I will comment on that part of the discussion or topic which is important to me.. You are free to discuss whatever you want with everyone else or no one else. I do not want to get into an extended discussion on subjects not of interest to me.

As I have said before, I have argued both sides of this issue because I believe that both sides have valid arguments. However, in the long run, for me, it comes down to one single tie breaker. I believe it is more important that that one lonely person in North Dakota to have representation than it is for one specific person to become president. Because this government is for the people and not the other way around.

Also, you might notice, I have felt no need to insult to make my point.

 

Slavery was also the law of the land. So were numerous other unjust systems.

You are basically saying it’s the law because it’s the law which is circular reasoning.

I didn’t have a candidate I supported in the 2016 elections so I don’t know what you are referring to with the statement “it allowed the defeat of my candidate”

If you want to see the group that your statement actually represents you should look no further than the republicans — 54% of republicans wanted to remove the EC system before the 2016 elections, guess what it is at now... Stop acting like republicans don’t support this almost exclusively because it allows imposition of their ideology on the unwilling majority.

 

so you agree that the majority vote within each district is a 'bad idea', so why advocate for majority vote nationwide?, that would mean that 63 million+ will never have a say, ever... the ec is best we have, even if partially flawed & 5 out of 46 is a damm good ratio, it proves the ec works to protect us all

 

I had never even thought about a uniform pattern nationwide. That’s a great idea and infinity better than this:

 

How would 63 million people never have a say? Everyone’s vote would be weighed equally.

And no, overruling the voices of the country 5 out of every 58 elections isn’t a good system
It’s almost a 10% failure rate.

 

yes, but we'd also have to prevent the 'states' from declaring where those district votes go. make it one vote per district, no need for an actual person (electorate) to cast it, tally up all the district votes and declare a winner... simple

 

Most people look at the physical shape of the district and claim Gerrymandering. The physical shape is the least important characteristic.

Ideally, we would like the districts arranged so that in an election, the proportion of electoral votes will be the same as the proportion of voters. If there is 50/50 republican/democrats, arrange the districts so that half will be republican and half democrat.

We would also like it to be possible for a the person representing that district be able to fairly represent all voters in that district. That means in a rural area, you want no cities in that district and in an urban area, you have no rural areas. If it is a manufacturing area, we want everyone in that district to be associated with manufacturing. Obviously all of that is impossible.

The alternative would be to make each district as close to a square as possible, but of a size which provides the correct numer of citizens. The problem with that concept is that you will have a single representative trying to meet the needs of a varying population with competing needs. Which is the last thing we should want.

In the long run, the strange shapes make more sense.

 

Balto, what we should do is to return to the government that our Founders envisaged.

The President was supposed to be an administrator of the laws passed by Congress. The President was actually granted very little power by the Constitution.

The Congress was supposed to be the center of our politics.

Who is president was not supposed to matter very much, except, perhaps in times of war.

And so it follows that the President was supposed to be a unifying, almost ceremonial position. Not quite strictly ceremonial, but very much in many ways.

Over time, Congress has ceded its responsibilities and power to the President and the Supreme Court. Why? Because they are career politicians and risk averse. This was certainly not true of our Founders, but it is certainly true of our present-day gutless and thoroughly corrupt members of Congress.

Balto, if Congress was operating the way it is supposed to operate, who was the President would hardly matter.

 

No, they don’t. They allow politicians to pick their voters instead of voters picking their politicians. Some of you seem to be fine with this which is... strange.

 

You ignored questions and points that are directly on topic to what is being discussed and addressed points you had made but ok. Sure.

It is strange that you say the government is “for the people” yet you are defending a system that overrides the actual voice of the people. You act like the one lone voter in ND would not have any say in the process. That they would be excluded and not allowed to vote. They would have an equal say. Equal to every other American.


It wasn’t an insult. It was an observation

 

Examples can be made to portray whatever you want. It is like I said in post #120. Show me where any point I made in that post was wrong.

Physical shape is not important. What is important is fair representation, whatever shape that might be.

 

I explained why. As far as I am concerned that is a dead issue.

I am defending a system which I consider the best compromise given the alternatives.

When you say "Feel free to have some integrity ", that is an insult. I know it and you know it so there is no point in denying it.