Is the Electoral College Doomed?

[NM11046]

39 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

So candidates could focus their campaigns almost completely on densely populated areas (liberal areas), while all but completely ignoring rural areas, and what government action might benefit them?

I'd prefer the election not be decided by a handful of like-minded U.S. cities. It benefits the process that  every corner of America is represented fairly. On the  surface, it's easy to agree with you, but the founding fathers had this one right.... In my opinion of course.

No-ice Nucky.  Digging the new profile pic.

[NM11046]

40 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

So candidates could focus their campaigns almost completely on densely populated areas (liberal areas), while all but completely ignoring rural areas, and what government action might benefit them?

I'd prefer the election not be decided by a handful of like-minded U.S. cities. It benefits the process that  every corner of America is represented fairly. On the  surface, it's easy to agree with you, but the founding fathers had this one right.... In my opinion of course.

I understand this opinion, but it could be argued the opposite.  Currently the system gives a lot of weight to areas where there are very few actual people.  I'd prefer the election not be decided by a handful of rural (conservative) areas.

 

I'm with Moiraine and others.  Popular vote is the only fair way.

[B.B. Hemingway]

5 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

I understand this opinion, but it could be argued the opposite.  Currently the system gives a lot of weight to areas where there are very few actual people.  I'd prefer the election not be decided by a handful of rural (conservative) areas.

 

I'm with Moiraine and others.  Popular vote is the only fair way.

 

 

As I said, I understand being in favor of the popular vote. On the surface, it appears to be what would best represent a democratic country. Though, given the disproportionate way we have decided to populate areas throughout this country, I don't think the popular vote best represents all of us.

 

So, I certainly understand where you all are coming from, I just disagree.

Edited February 24, 2018 by B.B. Hemingway

[greenmonkey51]

32 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

So candidates could focus their campaigns almost completely on densely populated areas (liberal areas), while all but completely ignoring rural areas, and what government action might benefit them?

I'd prefer the election not be decided by a handful of like-minded U.S. cities. It benefits the process that  every corner of America is represented fairly. On the  surface, it's easy to agree with you, but the founding fathers had this one right.... In my opinion of course.

 

That is what the senate is for. If 75% of population lives in the densely populated areas how is it fair that their votes count less than someone in nowhere nebraska? 

[RedDenver]

13 hours ago, jsneb83 said:

 

What about the other 2 electors?

What? All the electors would be assigned. Whether a state has 3 or 300 electors, they would all be assigned based on the popular vote of the state.

13 hours ago, jsneb83 said:

Not to mention all the votes that aren't even cast because they already know who their state is voting for.

That's the entire point - that wouldn't happen anymore. The minority party would still get electors. For example, if a state had 5 electors, then a party that has 10+% of the vote would get at least 1 elector.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, greenmonkey51 said:

 

That is what the senate is for. If 75% of population lives in the densely populated areas how is it fair that their votes count less than someone in nowhere nebraska? 

 

 

Yup.

 

The senate is enormously weighted toward rural populations. I don't think people really think about how good they have it when they have 2 senators in a state with 2 million people. There are 320+ million people in the country. Think about a state like California. Nebraska is on equal footing with California, but California has 20 times the population of Nebraska.

The flyover argument has always been bad, imo. The same argument can be reversed. Why should areas with smaller population be deciding for places with higher population. That's the way it is now. The most fair way to do it is for every vote to count.

And then there's the House. Someone mentioned Montana in another post. Let's stick with Nebraska and California. They have 53, Nebraska has 3. California has 17.7 times the number of Reps as Nebraska, but 20 times the population. BOTH the Senate and the House favor areas with low population. I understand Nebraska has it good and people like to cling to good things, but I don't buy the argument that the popular vote is unfair. What's unfair is the way things are now. The senate was a great idea and still is, but right now all 3 votes are skewed in favor of places like Nebraska. And yet we still get people complaining that those politicians in Washington are ignoring us poor country folk. lol.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Moiraine

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 hour ago, greenmonkey51 said:

 

That is what the senate is for. If 75% of population lives in the densely populated areas how is it fair that their votes count less than someone in nowhere nebraska? 

 

The reasons are simple, and known. It's just a matter of whether you agree with the reasoning. Some don't, and that's fine.

What chance would rural America's interests have if we went with the popular vote? I hear the argument, I just disagree. It's one of the more innovative parts of the Constitution, and I applaud our founders for it.

[B.B. Hemingway]

22 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

And yet we still get people complaining that those politicians in Washington are ignoring us poor country folk. lol.

 

That's exactly what would happen if we used the popular vote.

 

The electoral college is the best way to be sure that citizens from all walks of life have a say in our election.

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

That's exactly what would happen if we used the popular vote.

 

The electoral college is the best way to be sure that citizens from all walks of life have a say in our election.

No it's not. Are you ignoring what I said about the Senate and House or do you just think they're not that important?

[zoogs]

 There are a lot of like-minded Americans in rural areas and small towns. We don’t need to boost their voice relative to those of other Americans for any other reason but to favor the Republican Party in presidential elections.

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

No it's not. Are you ignoring what I said about the Senate and House or do you just think they're not that important?

 

I read every word, and Yes it is.

 

Scenario:

 

Should 10 Christians in a room get to decide what's good for the 2 Muslims there with them? Or should the two Muslims have a voice that carries equal weight in the decision making process? Not equal, as in person for person, their opinion would never truly be heard if that were the case.

[B.B. Hemingway]

6 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 There are a lot of like-minded Americans in rural areas and small towns. We don’t need to boost their voice relative to those of other Americans for any other reason but to favor the Republican Party in presidential elections.

 

To each their own. I'd rather not have 10 of our largest metropolitan areas decide an election for the entire country.

Edited February 24, 2018 by B.B. Hemingway

[zoogs]

I’d rather have the majority of the people of the country deciding for the “entire” country. You have a curious definition of “entire”. There are honest arguments you can make for your preference, but when it’s literally a moderating counter to majority rule, “for the entire country” is not one of them.

[Moiraine]

12 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Should 10 Christians in a room get to decide what's good for the 2 Muslims there with them? Or should the two Muslims have a voice that carries equal weight in the decision making process? Not equal, as in person for person, their opinion would never truly be heard if that were the case.

That's what the Senate does, but for rural populations.
That's what the electoral college does, but for rural populations.
That's what the House does to a lesser extent, but for rural populations.

Using your example, the 2 Muslims are worth more than 2 votes (much more, in the senate), and the 10 Christians are worth less than 10 votes.

The answer is we should have a combination. The senate should stay the way it is so places like the midwest don't get ignored, and the presidential election should be popular vote.

You seem to want all of the top political bodies in the country to favor lowly populated areas. That's the way we have it now.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Moiraine

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

That's what the Senate does, but for rural populations.
That's what the electoral college does, but for rural populations.
That's what the House does to a lesser extent, but for rural populations.

The answer is we should have a combination. The senate should stay the way it is so places like the midwest don't get ignored, and the presidential election should be popular vote.

You seem to want all of the top political bodies in the country to favor lowly populated areas. That's the way we have it now.

 

I want to further explain my positioning, bit I'm tired of doing this from my phone.

 

So, agree to disagree for now. We'll argue later