04-03-2019, 03:21 PM
(04-03-2019, 02:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The only way the EC should be kept is if all votes are equal among voters. If you have any state where it takes twice as many citizens to make up an electoral vote compared to another state, then it is an undemocratic institution. Right now we have states where it takes four times as many people as other states. This is an inequitable process. No person's vote should count more than another person's.
Except it already does and it always has. The process in inequitable in this fashion by design. I again return to the example of the Senate. the mere fact that it exists is sufficient proof that the Framers did not want a purely representative democracy. I again return to the point of the tyranny of the majority. These features you take issue with are by design.
Quote:Clinton didn't lose for ignoring the rural areas, she ignored the rust belt. But the focus in the rust belt is still in more urban areas, the industrial centers. To go the rural route there is inefficient for a campaign. They just don't do it. There is no incentive to go to rural areas now, and no incentive for them to pay attention to their plights, now.
Wisconsin isn't a rural area? I called her losing Michigan and Pennsylvania, but I was surprised she lost Wisconsin. There absolutely is a reason to go there now and Clinton just provided the most recent example of it.
Quote:To be fair, my campaign against the EC began after Gore lost. That being said, that was also when I was 15 and really just starting to pay attention to these sorts of things. I was also a libertarian type in my teen years, so that was likely a big reason.
Not that I knew this, exactly, but there was a reason I excluded you from that statement. I think you would have to admit that a large percentage of the people kvetching about this issue are as I described.
Quote:So by utilizing a winner-take-all system, we discount the votes of millions of people. A Republican in your state has a wasted vote. A Democrat in Mississippi has a wasted vote. This goes back to my viewpoint that every vote should count equally, which is the cornerstone of my position. Right now that does not happen.
So how do you propose we fix this inequity in the race for governor of those particular states?
Quote:In the spirit of the debates of the Constitutional Convention, how would you feel about allocation based on House District, with the two remaining Electors being allocated with a state overall vote, much like the way seats are handled in Congress?
Again, no, as it would achieve essentially the same effect as a popular vote total. I agree with your idea to expand HoR numbers, this would, at least partially, address your concern. I would not be in favor of a system as you just described.
