04-03-2019, 07:58 PM
(04-03-2019, 04:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm sorry. I didn't notice any reasons as I was participating in this discussion. It seemed to be "If you go to popular vote, the rural areas get ignored" but then...rural areas are going to inevitably be ignored. Because there just aren't a lot of votes there (both popular votes and electoral votes). The Democrats have ignored rural areas for ages. The entire center and south of the United States is Red every single election, with only a few exceptions.
Sorry, but the fact that the Dems ignore the rural areas is not a very good argument for abolishing the EC. It would only give them more incentive, if any was needed, to give them less attention. Also, a party ignoring large swathes of the country is not a good thing. As blue as CA is the GOP has not abandoned it.
Quote:At least the popular vote would make their votes be worth the same as the city dwellers votes, even if it means that politicians wouldn't really campaign there as often. The electoral college vote makes Democratic votes in Red states and Republican votes in Blue states, literally, worthless. Which is an odd way to do an election. The Electoral college takes a nation's worth of votes and reduces them down to 10 states where politicians even bother campaigning seriously.
Which, again, is exactly what happens on state level elections. I don't understand why it's ok for this to happen at the state level, "because at least your vote is counted", and not at the federal. Also, the EC doesn't reduce an entire nation's votes to 10 states, that's just how it often breaks down. Honestly, the fact that there are so few "swing" states should concern you far more than the EC does.
Quote:As for the point on civil rights...I dunno. I wasn't alive during the Civil Rights movement, so I can't say how popular it actually was at the time. I assume it was popular enough to make politicians think they needed to pass the law.
Neither was I, but I can read books and watch documentaries. I don't think anyone can intelligently argue that the Civil Rights Act would have won a national popular vote election the year it was enacted or anytime time reasonably soon after.
Quote:As for Same Sex Marriage...I'm pretty sure it was insanely popular when it was made legal. Unless I was in some extreme liberal bubble. It didn't even seem to be controversial in my eyes (and the eyes of my social media). Maybe I'm mistaken.
You're very likely wrong. As recently as 2008 CA rejected same sex marriage by 600,000 votes. We're talking about the most liberal state in the nation. Same sex marriage is the Trump of issue voting, people aren't honest about it when polled. I say this as someone who has supported same sex marriage since before I came of voting age in 1992.
Quote:But I'm not saying make every law a popular vote. That's what politicians are for. I'm simply talking about the leader of our Federal government. Trying to extend my hopes for a more democratic system seems like a slippery slope fallacy on your part. Am I mistaking what you're saying?
I am saying that the leader of the United States is the leader of all fifty states. That being the case all fifty states should have their say in this appointment. A popular vote eliminates states altogether, which seems rather antithetical for a country called the United States.
