But I'd like to add again we don't live in a democracy we live in a democratic republic. We have never been a true democracy in the history of our nation.

 

Democracy is an umbrella term. It is inclusive of democratic republics, not in contrast to them. Now if he'd said "direct democracy", we might be onto something.

Just making sure I understand.

 

Does Robertson County (KY) get the same representation as Los Angeles County? I can see how someone who leans a bit to the right could run with that.

 

I do agree that the EC system has perpetuated stranglehold of the 2-party system.

 

Sure, why not? Just throwing a different method out there. I'd really prefer a 1 state 1 vote system where the person who wins the popular vote in each state gets the vote. Fair and equal state representation. Win 26+ states, you become President. Of course that too lends itself to a leans right outcome.

Sure, why not? Just throwing a different method out there. I'd really prefer a 1 state 1 vote system where the person who wins the popular vote in each state gets the vote. Fair and equal state representation. Win 26+ states, you become President. Of course that too lends itself to a leans right outcome.

So you're saying Wyoming with fewer than 600,000 inhabitants should get an equal say in a presidential election as California with nearly 39 million inhabitants? That would mean one Wyoming voter = 65 California voters. Hardly fair and equal.

Democracy is an umbrella term. It is inclusive of democratic republics, not in contrast to them. Now if he'd said "direct democracy", we might be onto something.

 

Correct but calling for a straight popular vote falls under direct democracy and not a democratic republic when talking of electing the executive branch.

 

The same reason we don't have ballot intivatives on the federal level as we do on the state. We elect officials who make laws. We set up a state system to make sure voices with different ideas and standards have their voice heard. We also make sure to protect the rural vs urban vote. We can't allow clusters of concentrated population determine our next executive. No system is perfect but I just don't think the popular vote for the executive branch falls in line with how our government is set up.

 

It's not to say how it's currently being run is great either because it isn't.

So you're saying Wyoming with fewer than 600,000 inhabitants should get an equal say in a presidential election as California with nearly 39 million inhabitants? That would mean one Wyoming voter = 65 California voters. Hardly fair and equal.

 

I never said it was fair or equal other than state equality. I just said I'd like to see it. Though In my opinion, 1 Wyoming voter is worth even more than 65 Cali voters.

Edited December 30, 201510 yr by WhoozYoDaddy
clarify

I never said it was fair or equal other than state equality. I just said I'd like to see it. Though In my opinion, 1 Wyoming voter is worth even more than 65 Cali voters.

Under the current Electoral College, Wyoming has 3 votes total, which is one vote for every 185,000 residents or thereabouts. By contrast, California has 55 electoral votes, which is one vote for every 715,000 residents, or thereabouts. Under the current system, small states (in terms of population) have more clout than they should because of the 3 electoral vote minimum.

There's a fairly plausible way to move toward a popular vote by passing legislation on a state by state basis.

 

Each state can choose how it appoints its Electors. Right now every state appoints its Electors based on who wins each state's popular vote (except Maine and Nebraska who do it by district). If 270 Electors worth of states appointed their Electors based on who won the national popular vote instead of their individual states, then the presidency would go to the national popular vote winner.

 

Eleven states have done this already, adding up to 165 EC votes. It doesn't go into effect in any state until 270 votes are reached. If you think we should replace the Electoral College with a popular vote, then put some pressure on your state representatives in Frankfort.

 

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

It's an imperfect solution, but it has the benefit of plausibility. I'd much prefer amending the constitution with a better designed plan, but I have zero hope in that. I don't think this country could agree the sun is hot in the state we are in. Though, I think if this plan was successful and people liked it then amending the constitution would become easier.

Sure, why not? Just throwing a different method out there. I'd really prefer a 1 state 1 vote system where the person who wins the popular vote in each state gets the vote. Fair and equal state representation. Win 26+ states, you become President. Of course that too lends itself to a leans right outcome.

North Dakota might love your idea but I don't think California would be very happy with it.

I wouldn't have a problem with each state's congressional district electoral votes going to the candidate that wins that district, instead of the present state winner-takes- all method. I believe a few states do it that way, but very few.

Then award the candidate with the most votes statewide with the two Senate electoral votes.

There's a fairly plausible way to move toward a popular vote by passing legislation on a state by state basis.

 

Each state can choose how it appoints its Electors. Right now every state appoints its Electors based on who wins each state's popular vote (except Maine and Nebraska who do it by district). If 270 Electors worth of states appointed their Electors based on who won the national popular vote instead of their individual states, then the presidency would go to the national popular vote winner.

 

Eleven states have done this already, adding up to 165 EC votes. It doesn't go into effect in any state until 270 votes are reached. If you think we should replace the Electoral College with a popular vote, then put some pressure on your state representatives in Frankfort.

 

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

It's an imperfect solution, but it has the benefit of plausibility. I'd much prefer amending the constitution with a better designed plan, but I have zero hope in that. I don't think this country could agree the sun is hot in the state we are in. Though, I think if this plan was successful and people liked it then amending the constitution would become easier.

I let my peeps know!

I still say either have a majority of votes wins, or leave it alone. I would be okay with something being worked out so where there are at most 3 parties, I look at other countries that have several parties and its usually chaotic.

The same reason we don't have ballot intivatives on the federal level as we do on the state. We elect officials who make laws. We set up a state system to make sure voices with different ideas and standards have their voice heard. We also make sure to protect the rural vs urban vote. We can't allow clusters of concentrated population determine our next executive. No system is perfect but I just don't think the popular vote for the executive branch falls in line with how our government is set up.

 

Curious, but isn't this exactly how the "executive" branch of each state is elected? I mean, the governor isn't selected by winning so many counties, or even state representative/senate districts...it's the voters from the entire state. One person equals one vote, and nobody is complaining about it, are they?

Curious, but isn't this exactly how the "executive" branch of each state is elected? I mean, the governor isn't selected by winning so many counties, or even state representative/senate districts...it's the voters from the entire state. One person equals one vote, and nobody is complaining about it, are they?

 

So you don't understand the difference between federal and state ?

So you don't understand the difference between federal and state ?

My point is, under the current setup, winning by one vote in a certain state can be more beneficial than winning by a million votes in another state...just because of how many people live in that state (and thus, have more electoral votes). Therefore, you're allowing the same thing you say you're against...allowing "clusters" of concentrated population to determine the outcome. It's just that, in this instance, a cluster can be defined as a state, not just a city.