I'm not sure. I think the function has evolved to ensure large cities don't control the entire country. And that a dictator doesn't emerge as a result.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Popular Vote is Irrelevant
- Thread starter Watchmen
- Start date
I'm not sure. I think the function has evolved to ensure large cities don't control the entire country. And that a dictator doesn't emerge as a result.
You deserve credit for creating the best "hot button" topic I've ever seen on RF.
... which is already protected against by the Senate.
Give it a year or two and we'll see how well the electoral college did on that point.
Parchment
Active Member
Please prove your original claim that common sense demands others to agree and join with you in defeating your common foe.
I don't know if the EC is any better at preventing dictatorship than the popular vote.
But we are a republic, & the less populous states have relatively more power per voter.
This is wrong for fans of the popular vote, but right for those who prefer a republic.
I prefer that which favors people from more thinly populated regions over those in a hive.
But "right" & "wrong" are irrelevant, since both systems would be quite representative.
Anyone who wants to may work towards change.
If that's your best response, then this is getting too middle school even for me, Parchment.
The main point I'm trying to make is to exercise not just a little, but a lot of caution when it comes to changing the delicate balance of the Constitution.
I sympathize.
I just don't think switching to the popular vote would be all that bad.
Sure, less populous regions would be often ignored during the
campaign, but they'd still have votes which pols would cater to.
Only a constitutional amendment would change this, the other
proposals notwithstanding.
Sometimes I think a random number generator would do just as well. Think of the cost savings!
Aye dat!Sometimes I think a random number generator would do just as well. Think of the cost savings!
I don't see voting as ensuring the best candidate wins, but rather as
a mechanism to mitigate entrenchment of governmental power over us.
Jury trials function similarly.
You know what, I think you just nailed it.
Wrong. Your premise is flawed with the inclusion of the word "duped." That suggests they were tricked and denies that many folks actually like Trump's various positions.
It doesn't suggest that the majority of the electorate doesn't support Trump.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Instead Florida and Ohio hold all the power. Listen man I'm from Florida and I am 100% sure we shouldn't be deciding the fate of the US. I've never been to Ohio but I don't hear good things from there either.
How could I not frubal such an embiggening post!
You're making assumptions. I never said Trump would do better. I said no one knows what the result would be. I'm not advocating change in the rules.
Hold on there, bub!Care to put up your opinion to popular vote?
We demand that the various restricted political forums send delegates to the RF Electoral College.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
While the Electoral College has its share of controversies and faults, the real question is, can it be changed? Given that a constitutional amendment is required to do so and 75% of the states must agree to the change, I don't see it happening. Analyzing the percent change from electoral voting to population, 29 states (including DC) would have a decrease in voting power, 8 would have no change, and just 14 states would have an increase. There is no way that enough states would vote to decrease their own voting power.
I admit that I went into the realm of the improbable, but not the impossible. Without various checks and balances we run the risk of becoming a one-sided system.
You said that we shouldn't read much into Clinton taking the popular vote, because Trump's popular support would have been "different" if the race was based on the popular vote.
Why not?