Trump now ahead in the Popular Vote

[Underhill]

Instead of red and blue states, we'd have red and blue population centers. Land in America would be meaningless during election season (or 1.5 out of every 4 years). Eventually (read as 12 years after this changeover), many would congregate to the cities that offer a "conservative" or "progressive" way of life. Politicians would then need to go to both areas, and just promise a whole lot of things. Likely different things to each group, but the core demographic for those candidates would need to be promised how living where they do will get better should that person be elected.

With electoral college, where you live exactly doesn't matter, as being in rural place is equal to being in heavily populated place.

Anyway, I'm in the current conservative movement that wishes to retain the constitutional electoral college, and am resisting of those who wish to go to popular vote as means of determine POTUS. If I were a betting person, the soonest I see that having a good chance is around 2028. Though I'd hedge that bet with "never will happen" and hope I'd be able to collect on that every 4 years for rest of my life. I'd let my great great great grandchildren know this is a way you don't have to work and you can collect money on it, forever.

This system come from a time when the rural population was a large percentage of the country. But people have been moving to the cities. So why should the ratio of delegates remain unchanged?

I understand why the right doesn't want it to change. They've spent a boat load of money working to control the current system in the vast majority of states. This is why states like PA and Florida are easily theirs and Ohio isn't hardly in contention anymore.

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably so. But that is irrelevant to the point.
Why shouldn't every persons vote count equally?

Good question.
Because less populated states would become relatively weaker relative to the big'ns.
Next, should senators be apportioned by population?

I get that it is history. But the reasons it was set up this way were garbage to begin with, and don't even exist anymore. So why continue with an inequitable system?

Because it hasn't changed.
That's the singular reason.

 

[Underhill]

Good question.
Because less populated states would become relatively weaker relative to the big'ns.
Next, should senators be apportioned by population?

I get that when you are talking about the Senate. That entire system was set up so that the house is apportioned by population, the senate was not. We are not talking about that.

The notion that smaller states would be harmed is nonsense. We are talking about picking a president, not some new legislation. Every person has an equal stake in the race. Why should small states get a disproportionate amount of votes?

Because it hasn't changed.
That's the singular reason.

Now you are just being obtuse. The discussion is whether it should change.

 

[Revoltingest]

I get that when you are talking about the Senate. That entire system was set up so that the house is apportioned by population, the senate was not. We are not talking about that.

The notion that smaller states would be harmed is nonsense.

Don't equate disagreement with "nonsense".
The electoral college gives them more power by allowing them to throw the entire state behind one candidate.
I'm not saying this is just.
But it's a real effect.

We are talking about picking a president, not some new legislation. Every person has an equal stake in the race. Why should small states get a disproportionate amount of votes?

I don't say they should.
But I see the reasoning behind it.
You make a distinction between legislation & selecting a president.
Why should that be made?

Now you are just being obtuse.

You just ruined a perfectly good irony meter!

The discussion is whether it should change.

I picked a side.
I stated it.
I gave my reasons.
So I'm discussing the issue.
You, bruderherz, are the one introducing new & unrelated topics (my hebetude).

 

[Underhill]

Don't equate disagreement with "nonsense".
The electoral college gives them more power by allowing them to throw the entire state behind one candidate.
I'm not saying this is just.
But it's a real effect.

I don't say they should.
But I see the reasoning behind it.
You make a distinction between legislation & selecting a president.
Why should that be made?

This is at the heart of the issue.

Legislation tends to be targeted. It rarely affects everyone equally. Farm bills are a great example. Taxes are another. Balancing big state/small state legislation is important. This is why we have the Senate protecting the interest of small states.

A presidential race is about our national representation. He represents us all equally (or should). Like a governor represents his entire state. Or a legislator represents his district. There is no reason why one persons vote for his representative should be worth more than another.

 

[Acim]

This system come from a time when the rural population was a large percentage of the country. But people have been moving to the cities. So why should the ratio of delegates remain unchanged?

Because statehood is as much about land as it is about people. I think may would argue it is actually more about land than people. But that is a matter of debate.

 

[1137]

Shh .. gotta keep this quiet; otherwise, how will "they" fuel the leftist riots?

Probably by not wanting racist, sexist bigots in the white house, stomping all over individual freedom and hopefully not reaching their full awful potential?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is at the heart of the issue.

Legislation tends to be targeted. It rarely affects everyone equally. Farm bills are a great example. Taxes are another. Balancing big state/small state legislation is important. This is why we have the Senate protecting the interest of small states.

A presidential race is about our national representation. He represents us all equally (or should). Like a governor represents his entire state. Or a legislator represents his district. There is no reason why one persons vote for his representative should be worth more than another.

Perhaps I'm just being obtuse again (in addition to deplorable),
but I don't buy this distinction between the Senate & the President.
Farm bills are an example which can be countered by bills
which affect populous states, eg, the Big Dig in MA.
Moreover, much legislation is independent of geography, eg,
military draft, gay marriage, taxes, civil rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably by not wanting racist, sexist bigots in the white house, stomping all over individual freedom and hopefully not reaching their full awful potential?

Well, we did keep a bunch of them from taking over the White House in 2017.

 

[buddhist]

Probably by not wanting racist, sexist bigots in the white house, stomping all over individual freedom and hopefully not reaching their full awful potential?

I agree; let's begin by prosecuting the Communist terrorists out there agitating America right now.

 

[Underhill]

Perhaps I'm just being obtuse again (in addition to deplorable),
but I don't buy this distinction between the Senate & the President.
Farm bills are an example which can be countered by bills
which affect populous states, eg, the Big Dig in MA.
Moreover, much legislation is independent of geography, eg,
military draft, gay marriage, taxes, civil rights.

It can be. But I can at least understand the need to protect small rural states on the legislative side.

But the president is a representative of the people. That much is hard to argue.

 

[Revoltingest]

It can be. But I can at least understand the need to protect small rural states on the legislative side.

But the president is a representative of the people. That much is hard to argue.

I don't argue against that.
But I say Congress (even the Senate) has that same function, albeit oriented at times towards one's home state.

 

[Underhill]

I don't argue against that.
But I say Congress (even the Senate) has that same function, albeit oriented at times towards one's home state.

I agree. But as a representative of the entire country, the president should be picked by the entire country.

I like it when you make my point for me!

 

[fantome profane]

The electoral college gives them more power by allowing them to throw the entire state behind one candidate.
I'm not saying this is just.
But it's a real effect.

It does more than that. If divided the electoral votes up strictly by population a state like California would get 65 votes, not 55. New York would also get more electoral votes than it does right now (did the math once, to lazy to do it again right now, but if you doubt me do the math yourself). This means that if you live in a low population state your vote actually counts more than someone who lives in a high population state.


(I am making no comment on whether this is a good or a bad thing, but this is the way your system is)

 

[Underhill]

It does more than that. If divided the electoral votes up strictly by population a state like California would get 65 votes, not 55. New York would also get more electoral votes than it does right now (did the math once, to lazy to do it again right now, but if you doubt me do the math yourself). This means that if you live in a low population state your vote actually counts more than someone who lives in a high population state.


(I am making no comment on whether this is a good or a bad thing, but this is the way your system is)

It's that way because the number of delegates are determined by the number of house and senate seats. So even a small state with 2 house seats gets 4 electoral votes. Meanwhile a large state like California gets 53 house seats and 55 electoral votes. So the voters in the smallest states get almost twice as much representation (per voter) as those in the largest states.

 

[Acim]

It's that way because the number of delegates are determined by the number of house and senate seats. So even a small state with 2 house seats gets 4 electoral votes. Meanwhile a large state like California gets 53 house seats and 55 electoral votes. So the voters in the smallest states get almost twice as much representation (per voter) as those in the largest states.

You mean largest in terms of population. Cause America's largest state (Alaska) has 1 less electoral vote than America's smallest state (Rhode Island). There's not even a close 2nd to how big Alaska is in terms of size, compared to any other U.S. state.

 

[esmith]

Speaking as one of the "Deplorables" and living in one of the "fly over States" I look at it this way using the following map.
For too many years and, especially the last 8, the Presidential election has been decided by the large City populous areas and we in the urban and rural areas of the nation have been basically ignored or written off. Now speaking only for myself and possibly a significantly large number of the population in urban areas (50,000 or more), urban clusters (2,500-50,000) and rural areas have a different opinion on life in general. It appears that President Elect Trump recognized this and tapped into that feeling. The majority of the country thought that the country was going in the wrong direction (approximately 65%) but the majority did not like what they were hearing from President Elect Trump and went with the Hillary. Yet President Elect Trump again saw that the Hillary could be defeated by using the Electoral College to his advantage. Even the Obama said the Hillary campaigned wrong and even Bill was ignored.
Now, you can say it is not right the we have a President Elect Trump because he did not win the majority of the votes cast. But I can tell you that those that voted for President Elect Trump said that it is time for our voices to be heard.

Look at the map and tell me the right person did not win the right to be President. map is from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-flipped-parties-to-swing-the-2016-election/

Also look at the state government results see :http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-republicans-add-dominance-state-legislatures.html

And from a real tearjerker source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/gop-state-government-control

 

[fantome profane]

Speaking as one of the "Deplorables" and living in one of the "fly over States" I look at it this way using the following map.
For too many years and, especially the last 8, the Presidential election has been decided by the large City populous areas and we in the urban and rural areas of the nation have been basically ignored or written off. Now speaking only for myself and possibly a significantly large number of the population in urban areas (50,000 or more), urban clusters (2,500-50,000) and rural areas have a different opinion on life in general. It appears that President Elect Trump recognized this and tapped into that feeling. The majority of the country thought that the country was going in the wrong direction (approximately 65%) but the majority did not like what they were hearing from President Elect Trump and went with the Hillary. Yet President Elect Trump again saw that the Hillary could be defeated by using the Electoral College to his advantage. Even the Obama said the Hillary campaigned wrong and even Bill was ignored.
Now, you can say it is not right the we have a President Elect Trump because he did not win the majority of the votes cast. But I can tell you that those that voted for President Elect Trump said that it is time for our voices to be heard.

Look at the map and tell me the right person did not win the right to be President. map is from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-flipped-parties-to-swing-the-2016-election/

Also look at the state government results see :http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-republicans-add-dominance-state-legislatures.html
http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-republicans-add-dominance-state-legislatures.html
And from a real tearjerker source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/gop-state-government-control

You are making a choice to value geographical area over human beings.

 

[esmith]

You are making a choice to value geographical area over human beings.

No, I am valuing the ideals of the human beings that live in these geographical areas.
I and the others that voted President Elect Trump do not agree with the others. Tough it up, we had to live through 8 years of your ideals.

 

[David1967]

Probably by not wanting racist, sexist bigots in the white house, stomping all over individual freedom and hopefully not reaching their full awful potential?

You forgot misogynist.