First off Hellcats Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. We both want whats best for the good ole USA and today is a day to give thanks for our freedom to be able to speak our minds.

 

However this is sour grapes at best. You know as well as I do that the EC is here to stay. And Trump is a idiot too if he thinks its going.

 

Have a great day my friend.

 

Thanks for the well wishes and happy thanksgiving.

 

What is popular isn't always right, or in this case what is tradition isn't always right.

 

When we throw voters' voices away through process it's just as criminal as suppression and/ or fraud.

And if you lived in a large city you'd be asking "do I want rural America electing our President?". The problem with your argument is you sound as if you are saying people that live in large cities are incapable of making good election decisions and therefore their votes shouldn't mean as much or should be marginalized.

 

You would be saying the same about rural voters if the election was a straight popular vote. 300 counties/cities out of over 5000 would determine everything for the rest due solely to being regional population centers.

 

You live on a street with your wife, your son and daughter and their families live on either side of you and your best friend and his wife live around the corner. 4 houses in your little country...then one day a house full of skinhead Nazis move in across the street...they have different beliefs and values of everyone else in your little country...you good turning over all control to them because they have one more person in their one house than you and you family and friends do in 4 houses. The US is a representative democracy, not a straight up popular vote democracy.

And if you lived in a large city you'd be asking "do I want rural America electing our President?". The problem with your argument is you sound as if you are saying people that live in large cities are incapable of making good election decisions and therefore their votes shouldn't mean as much or should be marginalized.

 

First off, I didn't dream up the idea of concern that the major populace areas would wield too much power in a popular vote only election; it was the Founding Fathers. And it's not like this is a rural vs. big city issue as illustrated by the county vote example above. More of a large city core vs. everyone else results, with a few obvious exceptions.

 

From a purely financial perspective, if you look at the financial health of the suburban & rural areas that overwhelmingly supported Trump vs. the major metros which favored Hillary; I'd rather be represented by the folks who can balance a checkbook and handle their spending at least somewhat responsibly?

 

Personally when I travel around the country, I see the result of decades of mis-management in the cities; and don't say it's about $$'s, as they spend far more and get less results. Let's see, what do they all have in common?? Oh, that's right; they've been run by a single party for decades! Think there's an old saying that goes something like "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over again, and expecting different results"?

First off, I didn't dream up the idea of concern that the major populace areas would wield too much power in a popular vote only election; it was the Founding Fathers. And it's not like this is a rural vs. big city issue as illustrated by the county vote example above.

 

Where did they say this was the reason for it?

 

The division into states and Electoral votes was mainly due to slavery in the South. A popular vote would have disadvantaged the South because half their population couldn't vote, but after the 3/5s compromise they could count slaves for purposes of representation, and thus awarding states Electoral votes based on population satisfied the South.

 

Since the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments this justification no longer exists.

Maybe if the large cities are not willing to compromise when middle America does not want their liberal agendas, they could start a succession movement and lets give them a few states on one coast or the other and let them run it the way it seems fit. The rest of the country run those states the way they seem fit. See who lasts the longest.

 

I mean if we cant agree and we are so far off with each other, and nobody is willing to compromise, what options would be better? One side try to dominate the other to their beliefs? Thats whats going on now on both sides. Neither side is happy. And we are to the point I think the compromise has went about as far as its going. Dont believe me? Just read some of these threads on here and look at the Presidential race this year and see for yourself. Never has America been more divided. Never.

You would be saying the same about rural voters if the election was a straight popular vote. 300 counties/cities out of over 5000 would determine everything for the rest due solely to being regional population centers.

 

You live on a street with your wife, your son and daughter and their families live on either side of you and your best friend and his wife live around the corner. 4 houses in your little country...then one day a house full of skinhead Nazis move in across the street...they have different beliefs and values of everyone else in your little country...you good turning over all control to them because they have one more person in their one house than you and you family and friends do in 4 houses. The US is a representative democracy, not a straight up popular vote democracy.

 

Your example could just as easily been a family of super intelligent, ultra kind people instead of skinheads:whistling: Either way, I can't get around the fact that with the electoral college, a large part of the population's vote simply gets marginalized (or enhanced) because of where they live. If all people are truly equal, why should where you live affect the weight of your vote? Nearly 2 million votes in this last election are simply being cast aside because they come from a large population area.

Maybe if the large cities are not willing to compromise when middle America does not want their liberal agendas, they could start a succession movement and lets give them a few states on one coast or the other and let them run it the way it seems fit. The rest of the country run those states the way they seem fit. See who lasts the longest.

 

I mean if we cant agree and we are so far off with each other, and nobody is willing to compromise, what options would be better? One side try to dominate the other to their beliefs? Thats whats going on now on both sides. Neither side is happy. And we are to the point I think the compromise has went about as far as its going. Dont believe me? Just read some of these threads on here and look at the Presidential race this year and see for yourself. Never has America been more divided. Never.

 

Why is it so hard to see that this statement works both ways. Compomise is possible, but both sides have to come off their high horse with the belief that their side is so vastly superior than the other. This "we are better and smarter than you" stuff is getting old and tiresome.

Your example could just as easily been a family of super intelligent, ultra kind people instead of skinheads:whistling: Either way, I can't get around the fact that with the electoral college, a large part of the population's vote simply gets marginalized (or enhanced) because of where they live. If all people are truly equal, why should where you live affect the weight of your vote? Nearly 2 million votes in this last election are simply being cast aside because they come from a large population area.

Exactly what would happen if we went with the popular vote, only on a grand-scale. Why should living in a heavily populated area affect the weight of your vote and the outcome of the election?

Exactly what would happen if we went with the popular vote, only on a grand-scale. Why should living in a heavily populated area affect the weight of your vote and the outcome of the election?

 

But with one person=1 vote, one person's vote isn't worth any more or less than anyone else's vote. A vote is a vote...where you live doesn't matter. I'm a former big city dweller from a big electoral swing state, and my vote is now worthless here in KY. I think it's one of the main reason's our turnout is so dreadfully low. Anything the supresses votes IMO, is not a good thing.

 

The electoral college has always left me somewhat confused as to the real purpose and benefit. I understand the premise, but I don't know that it really makes things "more equal". I can remember in 8th grade social studies, we had a class project where we wrote our own constitution. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we were nearly qualified to do such a thing, but the Electoral College was the one thing I remeber we all rejected in the writing of our Constitution.

But with one person=1 vote, one person's vote isn't worth any more or less than anyone else's vote, and I think it's one of the main reason's our turnout is so dreadfully low. Anything the supresses votes IMO, is not a good thing.

 

The electoral college has always left me somewhat confused as to the real purpose and benefit. I understand the premise, but I don't know that it really makes things "more equal". I can remember in 8th grade social studies, we had a class project where we wrote our own constitution. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we were nearly qualified to do such a thing, but the Electoral College was the one thing I remeber we all rejected in the writing of our Constitution.

 

I think turnout is low because of the candidates we get and people are lazy.

 

I think in the 8th grade most of you may have been too young to really grasp the concept of the Electoral College, just an opinion.

Why is it so hard to see that this statement works both ways. Compomise is possible, but both sides have to come off their high horse with the belief that their side is so vastly superior than the other. This "we are better and smarter than you" stuff is getting old and tiresome.

 

I agree 100%. But I think as a country that is not happening. Nothing says its gonna happen by the actions of both sides, I think you would agree with that? The left is moving farther to the left and the right has settled in for the long haul. I wish I could see something different but right now they facts do not support that.

So our largest population centers should not recieve the most focus... Makes perfect sense.

 

In the 21st century the EC is disenfranchisement of voters on both sides.

 

Do you actually remember what we call this Country of ours? The UNITED STATES of AMERICA and not the Largest states of America! Each State/Commonwealth has the same stake in this country, be they the smallest or the largest. The largest shouldn't get their way just because they have larger population and the EC makes certain that the whole Country gets to decide to whom will lead the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

Maybe if the large cities are not willing to compromise when middle America does not want their liberal agendas, they could start a succession movement and lets give them a few states on one coast or the other and let them run it the way it seems fit. The rest of the country run those states the way they seem fit. See who lasts the longest.

 

I mean if we cant agree and we are so far off with each other, and nobody is willing to compromise, what options would be better? One side try to dominate the other to their beliefs? Thats whats going on now on both sides. Neither side is happy. And we are to the point I think the compromise has went about as far as its going. Dont believe me? Just read some of these threads on here and look at the Presidential race this year and see for yourself. Never has America been more divided. Never.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

 

Ok Ill give you that. But besides that time its worse than any other. Happy Thanksgiving McPapa.

But with one person=1 vote, one person's vote isn't worth any more or less than anyone else's vote. A vote is a vote...where you live doesn't matter. I'm a former big city dweller from a big electoral swing state, and my vote is now worthless here in KY. I think it's one of the main reason's our turnout is so dreadfully low. Anything the supresses votes IMO, is not a good thing.

 

The electoral college has always left me somewhat confused as to the real purpose and benefit. I understand the premise, but I don't know that it really makes things "more equal". I can remember in 8th grade social studies, we had a class project where we wrote our own constitution. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we were nearly qualified to do such a thing, but the Electoral College was the one thing I remeber we all rejected in the writing of our Constitution.

 

RJ, you may be beating your head on the wall on this one, because some see the EC as a way to stop liberal city dwellers from ruling the country. We are ok with these elitist ideas.

 

The eradication of the EC rises of above the political leanings.