I can agree with that. we could bump out the back of the capital building and triple the number of representatives. I think there were something like 200K people per representative when they settled on the number 435. Our population is more than triple what is was back then.
You thought wrong. Criticism of the EC has been around forever, and rightly so – everyone’s vote should have the exact same influence. As it is, voters in some states – most notably really big states like CA, NY, and TX, but also many others – have zero influence into who’s president. They don’t matter. With a popular vote election, every voter, no matter whether they’re from IA, NH, AK, CA, NY, or any other state, would have the exact same power and influence with their vote for president.
There has been this exact same dynamic since the very first election was held in this country. If you want to change it, then just get a constitutional amendment. I’m sure your argument of “It’s bullshit” will carry the day.
And California and Texas votes matter. In fact with the highest and second highest number of electoral votes their votes matter quite a bit.
Every vote does not have to have the same influence in the outcome of an election. You’re just bellyaching because it worked against your partisan interests this time around. If it had gone the other way, I doubt that there would be very much distaste for the electoral college from the left and a lot of outrage from the right. It’s not the system that is bullshit. It’s the partisan outrage that is bullshit.
California still gets a ton of attention Democratic candidates during the primaries. And frankly Hillary spent too much time there during the general election.
With a popular vote, noone would campaign in sparse rural areas. Our national policy would be focused on cities and cities alone. Noone would chase the rural vote because it wold be too much work for too little benefit.
So why is Montana a low population state? Or Maine?
Probably a bunch of reasons. But the issue is whether the high population states are well run and the small population poorly run, which explains their population differences. Do you believe that?
Right now no one campaigns in big cities, unless they happen to be in swing states (and most big cities aren’t). And no one campaigns in rural areas in non-swing states. Explain to me why it’s better that rural OH should get more presidential general election campaign attention than NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston combined.
That’s the only argument I ever see – “but what about the rural areas?”
It’s nuts. Most rural areas get no attention anyway – only a few that happen to be in lucky swing states do now. So they, and a few lucky swing state cities, get all the attention, and the BIGGEST CITIES IN THE COUNTRY get none. There’s no reasonable argument that this is better than voters in rural areas counting EXACTLY THE SAME as voters in cities. Geographic areas shouldn’t have influence – only the American people, each exactly the same, should have voting influence, regardless of where they live.
OK. Then convince 2/3rds of the house and the senate and 3/4ths of the states and you have your constitutional amendment.
Otherwise, you live with the rules that were agreed to by everyone when the country was formed. The same constitution that was agreed to by every state that entered the union.
No, criticism at this level is relatively new. I’m sure there was a popular vote movement was around since the constitution was first ratified but it didn’t really pick up steam until Bush v Gore and people didn’t get their panties in a twist until Trump v Clinton.
Really? Because Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Hell, 170% of her 3 million popular vote advantage came from that state.
Meanwhile Trump was chasing a few thousand votes in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Turns out Trump’s strategy of trying to win electoral votes was a better one than a strategy of trying to win the popular vote. So fucking unfair.
What I believe is immaterial; I’m asking you what you believe the reasons are for some states low population. You have asserted that “being poorly run” is not the reason and I’m not challenging that assertion. I’m asking you what you think the reasons for these states’ low population are, since you do not believe “being poorly run” is one of the reasons.
There is also the argument that this was the compromise necessary to form a country in the first place. And if you want to change it, there is an avenue for you to do so. Just get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress and 3/4ths of the states. There is nothing morally superior about a popular vote imposed on an unwilling constituency over an electoral system that was agreed to by each of the states as they entered the union.
Cold landlocked states like the Dakotas have low populations, coastal states with great weather like California have higher populations.
Do you think liberal policies lead to population density or that population density leads to liberal policies? Because the cause and effect on that matter is pretty well established.
Financial stability doesn’t really seem to be driving population either:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/fiscal-stability
It doesn’t really seem to be education
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education
Perhaps it’s just where the jobs are. Where the weather is nice. Perhaps California is not the best run state in the country.
I say it’s not true because it is an idiotic and unsupported position. Low population states have a variety of leadership, both in dominant party and systems. Without any effort to defend that position why should I waste my time researching Maine’s population constraints?
What is this disputing? Yes, it would be very hard to change this. That doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do. The EC is a bullshit system that benefits no one but a handful of swing states, at the expense of everyone else.
Because otherwise your assertion is also an idiotic and unsupported position. You’ve offered no compelling argument or reasons to accept your assertion over the one you challenged.
Forcing a system that people do not want unto them is not the right thing to do. Doing it because it helps you politically is bullshit.
If it only advantages a handful of states at everyone else’s expense then you should have no problems getting the 2/3rds vote in both chambers and 3/4ths of the states.
Oh, ok I did some research. Turns out Maine and Montana are low population states because they start with M and have too many vowels in there name. Prove me wrong, buddy!
Hey dude, that’s great. I’ll go ahead and discount your assertion since you obviously weren’t serious when you made it.
But a cadre of slave-raping, white male land-owning geniuses imposed this undemocratic system on the country hundreds of years ago. How dare you criticize, complain or disagree? We must genuflect before these ‘founding fathers,’ for they are clearly our betters. :rolleyes: