Should the Electoral College be preserved?

Should the Electoral College be preserved?

  • Total voters
    11
Daylight63 said:
As long as LAND votes for the President we will ALWAYS need the EC. That way smaller states with LESS LAND can have a bigger input in the process.

Because in America, despite the fact that it is the 21st century, we don't elect President by how POPULAR they are with the voters.
Click to expand...
“Land votes?” What is “land votes?”

It don’t matter if you are a big Sate or small State, if you aren’t one of the four or five swing States you are ignored, the small State argument is a myth, has been since its conception
 
Tbird19482 said:
I voted NO because I believe it should be counted by Congressional districts and NOT winner take all.
As I have pointed out under winner take all some peoples wishes are not being taken into consideration.
Like in states like NY where over half of the states pop. live in a large metro area that controls what the state does and the people that live in the rest of the state may as well not even vote.
That happens a lot in NY and as I said the votes from upstate and western NY don't matter most times.
and for you MAGA morons these are large republican areas.
LETS change it so everybody's votes count.
Click to expand...
so let us know when NY is done changing it......for everyone's good of course.......
 
archives said:
“Land votes?” What is “land votes?”

It don’t matter if you are a big Sate or small State, if you aren’t one of the four or five swing States you are ignored, the small State argument is a myth, has been since its conception
Click to expand...
Population to senators
California 40 million 2 senators
Dakotas 2 million 4 senators
 
goat said:
Population to senators
California 40 million 2 senators
Dakotas 2 million 4 senators
Click to expand...
That is the Electoral College, not “land votes,” land doesn’t vote, and it is antiquated, began as a compromise on slavery and has been contentious since its offset.

America is a Democratic Republic, we elected our representatives to the republican form of government democratically, and the EC is not democratic, a citizen of Wyoming having 67 more say than a resident of California is not democratic
 
2964.jpg



President Donald Trump completed a clean sweep of the seven swing states ​


Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its members of Congress (two senators, plus House of Representatives members determined by a state’s proportion of the overall U.S. population).

California, the most populous state, has 54 electoral votes because it has 2 senators plus 52 representatives.

The least populous states and the District of Columbia have only 3 electoral votes each. (The 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, grants the District of Columbia, which is not a state, the same number of electors as the least populous state.)

The Constitution does not specify how the states award their electoral votes, but nearly every state uses a “winner takes all” method, wherein the candidate receiving the most popular votes gets all of that state’s electoral votes.

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.



 
archives said:
That is the Electoral College, not “land votes,” land doesn’t vote, and it is antiquated, began as a compromise on slavery and has been contentious since its offset.

America is a Democratic Republic, we elected our representatives to the republican form of government democratically, and the EC is not democratic, a citizen of Wyoming having 67 more say than a resident of California is not democratic
Click to expand...
We're on the same page.

There are 2 Dakotas, 2 Carolinas, 2 Virginias, and 2 Kansas for a total of 16 senators or 1/6 of the senate.
 
martin said:
Should not be preserved.

Your observation that the country "is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic that protects minority rights from the will of the majority" is not relevant. There isn't a sound reason why a resident of Idaho, for example, should have a larger say than residents of other states in the election of a President. In fact, it is unfair, the President being a national leader. A state's equal interest with other states is a legislative interest and is protected in the election of Senate members. Nor was your rationale the basis for the EC in the first place. Rather, giving small states a larger per capita voice was necessary to get their ratification. The EC came into being as a kind of bribery.
Click to expand...
yes there is because it's a Principle of giving states equal say as a precondition of our union.
 
Diogenes said:
I doubt it causes you to think, based on your response.
Click to expand...

YOUR POSTS ALWAYS MAKE ME THINK. THEY ARE SO INSIGHTFUL.

You are like if Oscar Wilde, Einstein and Jerry Lewis during the filming of "The Clown Who Cried" all had a massive three-way and created YOU.

NO ONE SHOULD EVER TELL YOU YOU AREN'T JUST THE MOST SPECIAL PERSON ON THE INTERNET!
8wnzCxs.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top