04-04-2019, 01:54 PM
(04-03-2019, 09:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would again have to disagree. The reason Madison didn't think the national popular vote would work? Slave states wouldn't be for it because it would take power away from them. That is the biggest reason this compromise solution was pushed forward. The other big reason is because the average voter would not know the presidential candidates, so there would be an indirect election. Those were the intentions, and those aren't an issue anymore.
I agree, the EC now functions in a way not entirely designed or intended, but definitely in line with the Framers principles.
Quote:That's not what rural means, though. I get that your perception is skewed, I deal with that all the time with students from NoVA, Jersey, and the like. But a small city can still be an urban center.
We're still having a semantic disagreement. I am cognizant that Milwaukee is an urban center, it's just a very big one. I am using rural in the sense that it's not a major population center like NYC or LA.
Quote:Maybe it's because I'm involved in politics a bit too much, but no. I am willing to take advantage of momentum like this. A decade ago, the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents wanted to get rid of the EC and it still hasn't happened yet. If this can help make it happen, I'm for it.
Fair enough, it's obvious we have a fundamental disagreement on this issue.
Quote:If we're talking about election equity we're talking about the individual level. One person, one vote.
Yes, and one person does have one vote, in their state. I understand your position on the disproportional EC votes per capita. Again, we just fundamentally disagree on this issue.
Quote:I think on this one, we would just have to disagree.
Paradoxically, agreed.
