04-03-2019, 04:40 PM
(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: No. But why is it important what state you happen to live in when you decide who is running the Federal government? At least with a popular vote, you'll know, for better or worse, the majority of the voters got the President they want. The alternative is what has happened in 2 of the last 5 elections, which is we get a President that most people did not want.
If both scenarios devalue the rural areas of the country, why is the rural area argument even brought up?
For reasons already stated? Pure democracy is not a desirable outcome. If you disagree then ask yourself when the Civil Rights Act would have actually earned a majority of the popular vote. The answer sure as hell isn't when it was enacted. How about same sex marriage? If you brought that up for a popular vote it wouldn't certainly pass today. The majority can be in favor of some really ugly things and the Framers were well aware of this. I don't seen any reason to change the current system and plenty of reason to keep it.
(04-03-2019, 03:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. I have already said that I do not mind the states getting votes based on seats in Congress. I am just against the "all or nothing" allocation of EC votes.
Which, as I stated to Bels, is essentially the same thing as a pure popular vote.
Quote:But the existence of the House of representatives proves that the founders wanted each individual voice to be represented based on separate districts. They did not make a rule that every representative from a state had to vote exactly the same.
But the existence of the Senate proves that the founders wanted each state to have an equal say in the Congress regardless of population. Look, if there was no Senate I'd be forced to agree with you on the EC, despite my already stated objections to the plan you favor. However, the existence of the Senate is solid, undeniable, proof that the Framers did not want a pure Democracy, never did and in fact created a form of government that deliberately avoids it.
Quote:So if we are going by the will of the framers we would have the EC but not the "all or nothing" allocation of delegates, correct?
I believe, as Bels pointed out, that the all or nothing delegates is decided at a state level. In any event the electors can, and just did, vote for other candidates than those that won the state. Now, if you wanted to make a law that the electors had to vote for who won the state I'd be in agreement with that.
