How big of a vote gap would it take for you to drop the Electoral College?

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone has an equal say. Your say was just the same as mine; unless someone stopped you at the poll and told you differently. 
 

Well, I voted for Gary Johnson so my lack of a say was apparent before I walked into that place.

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the say is weighted? I just disagree with the notion that each state shouldn't have a say; regardless how big or small, when we elect a President of the United States.

Were we more in line with the Articles of Confederation, I'd agree. But we're not.

And let's be clear, the EC isn't all about states' rights. It is also about helping slave states get more votes (because it was based on apportionment, which included slaves being counted) as well as the idea that the voting public wouldn't know who was running for president. Therefore, they voted for an elector, someone they would know because they were local, to make the decision on their behalf.

It's an antiquated system that is made even worse by greater population disparities giving some people's votes twice, or even thrice the weight of others. It also causes presidential campaigns to ignore large swaths during the general election and only focus on key battleground states. Whereas if every individual vote mattered, a Democratic candidate wouldn't just ignore a state because it went Republican and vice versa.

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone has an equal say. Your say was just the same as mine; unless someone stopped you at the poll and told you differently. 
 

A person in Wyoming has more say with the EC system in a presidential election than a person in Texas. This is before we even get into parties, because we're just talking about the population per EC vote distribution. If it takes fewer people to make up an EC vote in one state than another, then the state where it takes fewer people has voters that are getting more of a say in the election.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Were we more in line with the Articles of Confederation, I'd agree. But we're not.

And let's be clear, the EC isn't all about states' rights. It is also about helping slave states get more votes (because it was based on apportionment, which included slaves being counted) as well as the idea that the voting public wouldn't know who was running for president. Therefore, they voted for an elector, someone they would know because they were local, to make the decision on their behalf.

It's an antiquated system that is made even worse by greater population disparities giving some people's votes twice, or even thrice the weight of others. It also causes presidential campaigns to ignore large swaths during the general election and only focus on key battleground states. Whereas if every individual vote mattered, a Democratic candidate wouldn't just ignore a state because it went Republican and vice versa.

I agree with your last part; I just don't agree with totally removing a State's identity in the National Election. Perhaps instead of a National popular vote or a winner takes all EC; the EC could be based on a percentage. That way each state had their say.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A person in Wyoming has more say with the EC system in a presidential election than a person in Texas. This is before we even get into parties, because we're just talking about the population per EC vote distribution. If it takes fewer people to make up an EC vote in one state than another, then the state where it takes fewer people has voters that are getting more of a say in the election.

Your vote counts the same as mine. The larger population has the larger say Nationally. However, you suggestion that a popular vote would cause candidate to campaign more wide spread is a notion I whole heartedly disagree with.

I totally ignore the smaller population states and focus solely on the more populous.

[*Nately120*]

Why can't the candidate that gets the most votes just win?

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Why can't the candidate that gets the most votes just win?

They win that state. 

[Benton]

(04-02-2019, 09:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You said it doesn't seem like an either/or, and then made it an either/or.

As for why not, because the POTUS isn't in charge of the states, it's in charge of a federal bureaucracy, a central government. Representation of the states occurs in the legislature.

(04-02-2019, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the say is weighted? I just disagree with the notion that each state shouldn't have a say; regardless how big or small, when we elect a President of the United States.

Why is the state more important than the people in it?

Is Montana (a large chunk of dirt) > than Montananans (the people who live there, pay taxes there and make it a viable culture)?

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 09:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They win that state. 

Why can't the person who gets the most votes just win the election?

[CJD]

I think the EC is outdated and not useful.

It basically makes the votes of people in highly populated area worth exponentially less than those of people in lightly populated areas.

On both sides.

If you're a democrat in California, your vote basically doesn't matter, because the state is declared democratic before they even start counting votes.

If you're a republican in California, your vote basically doesn't matter, because the state is declared democratic before they even start counting votes.

You could say very similar things in the majority of the south and middle of the country in favor of the Republicans.

In addition to that, it basically reduces "important votes" down to...like 10 states at most. Particularly, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

Why continue to have a system that literally devalues millions of people's votes every time the Presidential election comes around?

Eliminating it will also diversify the way politicians campaign, which I think is a good thing.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Why can't the person who gets the most votes just win the election?

Because we're a United States. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 09:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because we're a United States. 

Seems like we'd be more united if we elected the person more people in the United States voted for.

[Benton]

(04-02-2019, 09:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Why can't the person who gets the most votes just win the election?

Because 1- a couple hundred years ago smaller states were scared their voice wouldn't be heard and 2- the framers were concerned that splinter governments/groups could elect some fringe element that would steer the entire federal government in a dire and possibly selfish direction. 

The irony of 2 is depressing.

[Benton]

(04-02-2019, 09:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because we're a United States. 

Which has led to a divided people.

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:45 PM)Benton Wrote: Why is the state more important than the people in it?

Is Montana (a large chunk of dirt) > than Montananans (the people who live there, pay taxes there and make it a viable culture)?

not sure if you were directing the question at me or Matt, but my assertion is the state is no more important than the people. , but there's more than population that makes up a state. 

[*Nately120*]

Can I apply this to real life?  Like, if I'm sitting in the kitchen with a group of people and we are voting on which topping to get on a pizza can I go in another room and declare that my vote of anchovies should given more weight because we need to make sure the voices of people in the living room are heard?

This house is more rooms than the kitchen, after all.

(04-02-2019, 09:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: not sure if you were directing the question at me or Matt, but my assertion is the state is no more important than the people. , but there's more than population that makes up a state. 

You mean like the way NY contains one of our greatest cultural, artistic, and financial capitals and Mississippi is full of uneducated and knocked-up teens?

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Can I apply this to real life?  Like, if I'm sitting in the kitchen with a group of people and we are voting on which topping to get on a pizza can I go in another room and declare that my vote of anchovies should given more weight because we need to make sure the voices of people in the living room are heard?

This house is more rooms than the kitchen, after all.



You mean like the way NY contains one of our greatest cultural, artistic, and financial capitals and Mississippi is full of uneducated and knocked-up teens?

Only if each room had it's separate rights. 

Your last comment is detestable 

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 09:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only if each room had it's separate rights. 

Your last comment is detestable 

Each room does have separate rights.  You don't relieve yourself in the kitchen...do you?

And if making fun of knocked-up teens is wrong, then look out MTV!

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 09:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Each room does have separate rights.  You don't relieve yourself in the kitchen...do you?

And if making fun of knocked-up teens is wrong, then look out MTV!

Admittedly, I don't steer my morale compass by MTV. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2019, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Admittedly, I don't steer my morale compass by MTV. 

I think most of that Teen Mom and 15 and Pregnant stuff takes place in states where people's votes count more, though.