Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

DevoHusker said:
I think we have discussed this before. Because, if it only takes (arbitrary number) 12 of the most populous counties, in 4 of the most populous States, to win an election, people in small population counties and States will never see another candidate in person, and no candidate will care what people in the Midwest think, or hold as their values, which are often times vastly different than the values of the East and West coast. 

That is why I seconded @RedDenver with the idea proposed. 
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm in favor of getting rid of the EC and doing a direct vote as it's more democratic. I was just stating the other idea for discussion.

 
knapplc said:
No state uses an electoral college-like system to elect their legislators. In fact, no such system exists at any other level of local, state, or federal government. 

I keep asking and you keep not responding - what's wrong with one person, one vote?
Click to expand...


1 =1 renders states useless.  We are electing the POTUS.  Each state should be counted individually.  Each state is it's own culture so therefore should have a different input.  Nebraska should have the same say as California because we are both 1 state in the US.  1 =1 makes most states invisible in terms of elections, let alone seeing an actual campaign come through.  

 
Redux said:
Only if you think rural votes shouldn't count
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. 1 person, 1 vote is democracy.

To balance out competing interests of different states (like urban vs rural) we have the Senate, so rural Americans would still hold more power than urban Americans, just not in the Presidential election.

 
Redux said:
1 =1 renders states useless.  We are electing the POTUS.  Each state should be counted individually.  Each state is it's own culture so therefore should have a different input.  Nebraska should have the same say as California because we are both 1 state in the US.  1 =1 makes most states invisible in terms of elections, let alone seeing an actual campaign come through.  
Click to expand...






States SHOULD be invisible. "States" do not elect presidents. People elect presidents. 

None of these arguments make sense. 

 
RedDenver said:
This is nonsense. 1 person, 1 vote is democracy.

To balance out competing interests of different states (like urban vs rural) we have the Senate, so rural Americans would still hold more power than urban Americans, just not in the Presidential election.
Click to expand...


States should be looked at individually, not as a cluster.  1 person 1 vote is only making metropolitan area's important.  It's not democracy, but it hides well.

 
knapplc said:
This is exactly what happens now, with the Electoral college.  Surely you know this.

Candidates almost never come to Nebraska as it is. They rarely, if ever, go to Wyoming, North Dakota, or any other small-population state. Removing the EC wouldn't change that.
Click to expand...
So, you would be in favor of just one large Governing body, instead of representative seats in 2 Houses?

 
Redux said:
1 =1 renders states useless.  We are electing the POTUS.  Each state should be counted individually.  Each state is it's own culture so therefore should have a different input.  Nebraska should have the same say as California because we are both 1 state in the US.  1 =1 makes most states invisible in terms of elections, let alone seeing an actual campaign come through.  
Click to expand...
Except that's not even how the EC works. California gets 55 electors and Nebraska gets 5. The EC is just and indirect voting mechanism that makes little sense unless in a democracy, but people from states that get a disproportionally bigger vote influence don't want to give up that power.

 
RedDenver said:
Except that's not even how the EC works. California gets 55 electors and Nebraska gets 5. The EC is just and indirect voting mechanism that makes little sense unless in a democracy, but people from states that get a disproportionally bigger vote influence don't want to give up that power.
Click to expand...


That is how it works.  My vote counts towards Nebraska's total.  That's how it should be considering I live in Nebraska.

 
DevoHusker said:
So, you would be in favor of just one large Governing body, instead of representative seats in 2 Houses?
Click to expand...


It makes no sense to conflate those issues.  We're talking about elections, not the structure of governing bodies. 

When you vote for governor, senator, congressperson, mayor, whatever - one person gets one vote. That's how it should work in every election, at all levels of government. 

 
knapplc said:
States SHOULD be invisible. "States" do not elect presidents. People elect presidents. 

None of these arguments make sense. 
Click to expand...




Exactly. @Redux why should states matter in a presidential election? It should be an arbitrary line when it comes to this. The Senate represents people from each state. The House represents people from each distritct. The president represents people of the U.S.

Things are already lopsided in favor of low population areas due to the Senate and ease of gerrymandering in higher population areas. The vote for president at the very least should be done fairly and logically.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top