04-03-2019, 05:36 PM
(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
I disagree entirely with your premise that this is the design because the Electoral College does not exist as it was designed. As I pointed out in another post, the reasons for the Electoral College are moot because of it not acting as it was intended. We no longer vote for Electors, we vote for president and vice-president. The design was that we elect people to make the decision on our behalf.
Since we aren't utilizing the process in that way, any argument that the way the EC currently works is how it was designed is fallacious.
(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
Not all of Wisconsin rural. Even Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana have urban centers.
(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
Oh, absolutely. I've been on this ride for a long time and get frustrated with it. But I'm enjoying using the fact the argument is in the current Zeitgeist to help the push.
(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So how do you propose we fix this inequity in the race for governor of those particular states?
There is no inequity in a direct popular election, save voter suppression. Each vote counts as one vote.
(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
Not necessarily. In 2012 the Republicans maintained control of the House, even though there were more votes cast for Democrats in House elections. Much like the current system, there is a possibility for that to happen, but it lessens the probability.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
