Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I struggle to understand this argument. Surely, based on your argument the urban voter does not have a say?
Is this an argument that rural voters
Interesting. How though is the state government more representative of "the state" than the people of the state? The people voted for the government, no? In both cases (Senators and President) it comes down to the people in the end, it seems to me. You did educate me about the 17th Amendment (which I've looked up!) though, thank you.
As some have already commented here, this is dubious. Are rural people so different from urban people, and if so do these differences merit a greater representation in our society? A very interesting subject which perhaps deserves more study. As far as counties go, rural counties tend to be much less populated than urban counties (more cows though), more or less by necessity. Therefore adding counties doesn't tell us much.
Yes, if you have a run-off system. I don't think we do for President, do we? In any case, it's only a delay, and doesn't figure high enough to out balance the problems, as I see them with the EV.
From a republican in a blue state on the other side with a late poll closing, the election may well have been called before the polls even close here while I am still verifying voters, because even if close, those west coasters and Midwest voters with earlier closing times have all but guaranteed electoral votes so even if their was a wave, it wouldn't matter. Why should I vote?
That seems to be the premise, why do you think L graham wanted to disenfranchise all the voters in Omaha?
Yes and an even simpler and fairer to all solution is just to count the popular vote, while we may not have had the technology in 1800, we certainly do now.Did y'all know that only two states split their electoral college votes? I think more should do so.
Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska - 270toWin
While most states allocate electoral votes in an all or none manner to the popular vote winner, Maine and Nebraska take a different approach.www.270towin.com
Well if you aliens were not so standoffish, you could have had us leverage our poor capabilities to give us a system of at least mail in voting for everyone with one common count time! Instead you propose to abandon us because you are fed up, or bored or just prepping for the Vogons.
As an incel geezer, I guess I will go back to my towel.
Actually the populace does vote for the decision of the electorate so there is certainly a degree of say.
This from the guy who cries and moans every day about how he is ignored in his people's republic. LOL
Rural areas aren't an absolute block of voters. A democrat in rural Amerca voting in a red state doesn't have their vote count, the same as a republican living in a city in a blue state. There are small states that have a disproportionate number of eletor votes than big states, is that what you mean? Even small states have cities, they aren't all rural.
What rural needs are there that aren't also important to city folk as well? And how will that be the business of a president versus their senator and representative and governor? There have been farm bills that have helped rural folks, but don't you think that helps people living in cities too?
www.history.com
No, just those who voted for the candidate who won by one vote or more. Everybody else gets to shut up and deal with it.
Take it up with the Constitution. Doesn’t matter what century you’re in, the founders didn’t want one group to dominate the other. Do you oppose basing the electoral votes by Congressional districts? Is t that a step in the right direction?
“They feared a headstrong Democratic mob steering the country astray.” Still seems relevant today.I was curious when the EC was ceated and I found this interesting bit of info.
Five times in history, presidential candidates have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. This has led some to question why Americans use this system to elect their presidents in the first place.Among the many thorny questions debated by the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, one of the hardest to resolve was how to elect the president. The Founding Fathers debated for months, with some arguing that Congress should pick the president and others insistent on a democratic popular vote.Their compromise is known as the Electoral College.America 101: What is the Electoral College?
What Is the Electoral College?The system calls for the creation, every four years, of a temporary group of electors equal to the total number of representatives in Congress. Technically, it is these electors, and not the American people, who vote for the president. In modern elections, the first candidate to get 270 of the 538 total electoral votes wins the White House.The Electoral College was never intended to be the “perfect” system for picking the president, says George Edwards III, emeritus political science professor at Texas A&M University.“It wasn’t like the Founders said, ‘Hey, what a great idea! This is the preferred way to select the chief executive, period,’” says Edwards. “They were tired, impatient, frustrated. They cobbled together this plan because they couldn’t agree on anything else.”
Electoral College: A System Born of CompromiseAt the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands.One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn’t have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches.PHOTO12/UIG/GETTY IMAGESROGER SHERMAN AND OLIVER ELLSWORTH IN 1787 DRAFTING THE GREAT COMPROMISE, A PLAN FOR REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS.Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.
Slavery and the Three-Fifths CompromiseBut determining exactly how many electors to assign to each state was another sticking point. Here the divide was between slave-owning and non-slave-owning states. It was the same issue that plagued the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives: should or shouldn’t the Founders include slaves in counting a state’s population?In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were enslaved Black people, who couldn’t vote. James Madison from Virginia—where enslaved people accounted for 60 percent of the population—knew that either a direct presidential election, or one with electors divvied up according to free white residents only, wouldn’t fly in the South.“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which three-fifths of the enslaved Black population would be counted toward allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46).Not only was the creation of the Electoral College in part a political workaround for the persistence of slavery in the United States, but almost none of the Founding Fathers’ assumptions about the electoral system proved true.
Why Was the Electoral College Created? | HISTORY
The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.
No, the step in the right direction is what is usd in all other elections, popular vote. It would simplify the election and focus on all citizens in the US, not just a few states. Candidates would have to speak to all citizens in every state.
Whose mob attacked the Capitol? The Democrats don't have mobs, they have peaceful protests demanding women's reproductive rights and police reform. They protest bad SCOTUS decisions that reverse the liberties of citizens. It's the same court that decided presidents have massive immunity from crimes while in office.