This doesn't answer the question asked. I'm currently not even sure what you mean by rurally populated states. Perhaps you could use Alaska and Rhode Island to make your points as that I think helps make things more clear.
Sure. Alaska has 736,732 people. It has 3 Electroal college votes. To divide it out it means that every electroal college vote is worth 245,577 actual votes or every vote is worth .000007 EC votes. In RI they have 1,055,000 people and 4 EC votes. Each EC vote is worth 463,750 or every actual vote is worth .0000037 EC votes. This means that every vote in Alaska has roughly twice the value of every vote in RI. And that is not the largest dispairty between any two states but functions as an example.
And this is before we even talk about the concept of swing states and how Califorinia, Texas ect don't even matter as they are fairly guranteed to go blue or red respectively. So in reality Florida votes, reguardless of total EC value per vote, is still worth far more than the majority of the country.
This definitely doesn't answer the question.
I have answered the question twice now. Do they support EC out of bias because it has twice granted conservatives power while loosing or is it because they believe the system is correct due to functional reasons.
In the last 24 years, it's benefited Pubs for a whole 8 years. Wow! Huge benefit there. Because Dems can't have all 24 years, there's reason to moan? To complain about the system?
Yes. Though my major issues with it has to do with swing state isolation. But even a single disruption of democracy to me is a cause to moan.
Because the land of Alaska is seemingly way under valued. I don't think it actually is, but it seems a bit like that when the largest state (by far) is getting one less vote than the smallest state. Thus, whatever my take is on this, I realize there's another way of understanding this, where people do seem to matter more than land. But I think its both matter, and that land ought to matter more to likes of POTUS, while all other positions of responsibility ought to perhaps have attitude of people mattering slightly more than land.
I don't value land. I value people. A piece of land shouldn't get a vote over a human being. If you stand in the middle of a field you don't get more worth because you stand in a crowd of people. Their ideas don't deserve more representation than those who live in closer proximity to each other.
Because rural and urban makeup are issues that affect the presidency. Whereas, if everyone in the land was more evenly spread out, then all concerns would likely be about the same, rather than disproportionate based on how close people are together.
I think the presidency should be free from such speculation. Someone somewhere will not be represented by the president. If a political party majoring in the urban areas win then it is because they have convinced more people. The rural areas have HOR to represent them. The president should not be determed by land. The same way the govenors of states do not get elected based on land neither should the presidency.
Thus, you are making my point. I don't think those living and actually working the land are under the impression their way of life has died out. But if population was all that mattered, then I think it could go that way. So, you say highly doubtful, and I say very likely. I'm sure you're up for finding out. I'm not.
I am. Especially since we have evidence i'm right. For the Nth time I refrenec all state wide elections.
I actually think they do. To the degree they don't, I think it's cause of the notion that at most important level of government in the U.S. (POTUS), the opposite is true, and so they play the political game of pretending rural matters. Unless their conservative and they realize how valuable land and resources are to governing.
Any evidence of this? I
Now, you're just being funny.
A little. But I stand by the point that regional politics is dead.
What kind of evidence would you like? If you can define it, let me know what a google search produces for you.
Evidence that land ownership is proportional to value to a society. That those that rent or perhaps own but do not own vast quantities of land are somehow inhernetly or even have a correlation of being less so. Sparce populations are evidence of agricultural economy or poor economy. Skilled work, trade, manufacturing ect, all usually follow with more densly populated areas.
I disagree with this so fundamentally I do not see middleground to be found. This is just an internet post and this is just your opinion. But where it a serious political gesture to re-allocate power based on land ownership I would support civil war to stop it. It is that serious of a matter. Ownership of land does not equate to importance, value or good for the community.
That's fine, I don't see getting rid of EC panning out either.
Your claim remains baseless. Supporting arguments required.
I think both are untrue from perspective of State and Nation.
Evidence please. Or at least arguments. So far neither have been presented to me.
And yet, EC remains. The other way is faulty as well. It's not like we have population centers that exist without (very visible) faults. But if we went that route, I'd be interested in how the completely conservative one ran compared to the one run by liberals. That would be about the only reason I could think of why it would be interesting to see how the non-EC thing pans out.
The EC has little to do with this opinion. It is an archaic system that was put in place for reasons that no longer matter. It simply is the way it is.
Currently it is an easy way to create a two party system without allowing for 3rd party candidates. Winner take all elections push such an agenda and the two political parties in power don't wish to upset that balance. The democrats know they have a chance of beating the republicans if its a 1v1. The republicans know they have a chance to beat the democrats so long as it remains 1v1. And an ignorant voting population that believes there are only 2 choices on every complex issue will propagate the system infinitly. Has little to do with state rights, land ownership or rural vs urban arguments.
. I only have 1 acre, majority in grass, and the only time I'm not busting my *** is in the winter.
