Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

Enhance said:
This is a silly. First, that's not what's being said, and second, you're dumbing down the argument/debate in order to warp the discussion

Your response suggests it is rational to negate the way other people do things simply because it is different, without actually giving credence to why they may do things differently.
Click to expand...
What about the rest of the point.  If we would drastically change the way we do Presidential elections, why not make the other changes too in order to make a more representative government?   Why have a filibuster if we want majority rule?  Is there really a need for a Senate and a house or could we just have one big legislative body for majority rule that represents the will of the people?  

 
DevoHusker said:
Look at the maps from the just concluded election. Check out the number of counties won by Biden to amass 81 million votes. 
Click to expand...
So? There are counties with less than 100 people. In no way does it make sense to count counties. It doesn't make any point. It's like saying we should equally weigh the vote of a 100 person county to a 1 million person county. Here's a good graphic:

countyelection2.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux said:
States set their own laws and elect their own politicians, why would we abandon that ideology just to vote on the President?
Click to expand...


No state uses an electoral college-like system to elect their legislators. In fact, no such system exists at any other level of local, state, or federal government. 

I keep asking and you keep not responding - what's wrong with one person, one vote?

 
knapplc said:
I'm not sure why counties matter. Individuals vote, not arbitrary regions on a map.
Click to expand...


I think we have discussed this before. Because, if it only takes (arbitrary number) 12 of the most populous counties, in 4 of the most populous States, to win an election, people in small population counties and States will never see another candidate in person, and no candidate will care what people in the Midwest think, or hold as their values, which are often times vastly different than the values of the East and West coast. 

That is why I seconded @RedDenver with the idea proposed. 

 
DevoHusker said:
I think we have discussed this before. Because, if it only takes (arbitrary number) 12 of the most populous counties, in 4 of the most populous States, to win an election, people in small population counties and States will never see another candidate in person, and no candidate will care what people in the Midwest think, or hold as their values, which are often times vastly different than the values of the East and West coast. 

That is why I seconded @RedDenver with the idea proposed. 
Click to expand...


This is exactly what happens now, with the Electoral college.  Surely you know this.

Candidates almost never come to Nebraska as it is. They rarely, if ever, go to Wyoming, North Dakota, or any other small-population state. Removing the EC wouldn't change that.

 
DevoHusker said:
I think we have discussed this before. Because, if it only takes (arbitrary number) 12 of the most populous counties, in 4 of the most populous States, to win an election, people in small population counties and States will never see another candidate in person, and no candidate will care what people in the Midwest think, or hold as their values, which are often times vastly different than the values of the East and West coast. 

That is why I seconded @RedDenver with the idea proposed. 
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm in favor of getting rid of the EC and doing a direct vote as it's more democratic. I was just stating the other idea for discussion.

 
Back
Top