KLAMarine said:
Smaller states already have a say: votes from smaller states count no more or less than the votes cast in larger states. |
Wrong. For example, California has a population of just under 40 million, but only has 55 electoral votes - or 727,00 per electoral vote.
In comparison, my state of New Hampshire, has a population of 1.3 million, and 4 electoral votes - or 325,000 per electoral vote. Therefore, a vote in New Hampshire carries more weight than a vote in California.
| KLAMarine said: Smaller states already have a say: votes from smaller states count no more or less than the votes cast in larger states. |
That's not how they felt like in the past ...
Smaller states fought for their right to have more representation. If nobody ever agreed to the great compromise states such as Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Georgia, the delegates from each of these states would've walked out from the constitutional convention and they would've likely each become their own sovereign nations in the end ...
Nighthawk117 said:
Wrong. For example, California has a population of just under 40 million, but only has 55 electoral votes - or 727,000 per electoral vote. In comparison, my state of New Hampshire, has a population of 1.3 million, and 4 electoral votes - or 325,000 per electoral vote. Therefore, a vote in New Hampshire carries more weight than a vote in California. |
By the sounds of it, there's even more wrong with this electoral college thing than I anticipated at least as far as the presidential election is concerned.
I'm still wondering why we don't just decide the presidential race by popular vote where everyone's vote is worth exactly that: one vote as opposed to this current setup where one vote is worth 1/727,000 or 1/325,000 of an electoral vote depending on state.
fatslob-:O said:
That's not how they felt like in the past ... Smaller states fought for their right to have more representation. If nobody ever agreed to the great compromise states such as Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Georgia, the delegates from each of these states would've walked out from the constitutional convention and they would've likely each become their own sovereign nations in the end ... |
I understand that considering how states are represented in Congress but the presidential race's electoral college process currently makes little sense to me.
| KLAMarine said: I understand that considering how states are represented in Congress but the presidential race's electoral college process currently makes little sense to me. |
From a legal and historical point of view it makes absolute sense ...
Unless you can amend the constitution for the president to be elected via popular vote or work around the electoral college via NPVIC, both of which are very hard to do or unsuccessful then the electoral college will remain ...
Do you know of any other alternative that will get 38 state legislatures to agree on a presidential electoral system ?
The electoral college makes sense to me for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Each state have a say irrespective of their population count. It's like a council of apartment owners, each one has 1 vote irrespective of how many people live in the apartment.
fatslob-:O said:
From a legal and historical point of view it makes absolute sense ... Unless you can amend the constitution for the president to be elected via popular vote or work around the electoral college via NPVIC, both of which are very hard to do or unsuccessful then the electoral college will remain ... Do you know of any other alternative that will get 38 state legislatures to agree on a presidential electoral system ? |
No. I expect some states would prefer the electoral college remain in place despite its backwardness.
Nighthawk117 said:
Wrong. For example, California has a population of just under 40 million, but only has 55 electoral votes - or 727,00 per electoral vote. In comparison, my state of New Hampshire, has a population of 1.3 million, and 4 electoral votes - or 325,000 per electoral vote. Therefore, a vote in New Hampshire carries more weight than a vote in California. |
Even if the electoral college was based on population, it wouldn't make a big difference, as many states Trump won like Texas and Florida would also have more electoral college votes: http://www.270towin.com/news/2017/01/24/if-electoral-votes-were-weighted-by-state-population-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html#.WJPtjvkrKUk
Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).
barneystinson69 said:
Even if the electoral college was based on population, it wouldn't make a big difference, as many states Trump won like Texas and Florida would also have more electoral college votes: http://www.270towin.com/news/2017/01/24/if-electoral-votes-were-weighted-by-state-population-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html#.WJPtjvkrKUk |
Very nice link, Barney. This site did some excellent math.
| bdbdbd said: Usually when people vote for Mickey Mouse and the likes, they do so because they feel obligated to vote, but don't have a candidate to vote for. I've done the same a time or two. |
If I had the option I would have voted No confidence and it would be a valid vote to redo this election thing with more competent candidates. Like if the majority votes No Confidence, then the current options are all not allowed to stand in the general elections for one or two more terms. Then in re-election USA could have picked someone better like Bernie. In my opinion that is truly the vote of the people instead of "you get these guys whether you like it or not"
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
fatslob-:O said:
That's not how they felt like in the past ... Smaller states fought for their right to have more representation. If nobody ever agreed to the great compromise states such as Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Georgia, the delegates from each of these states would've walked out from the constitutional convention and they would've likely each become their own sovereign nations in the end ... |
What should happen is you get a percentage of electoral votes from states instead of a clean sweep like if 40% Californians voted republican then 40% of 55 electoral votes go to them and if 49% voted for democrates in New Hampshire then they get 2 electoral votes each that would be much more closer to true democracy
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
