"all of the states shouldn't be dictated to by a few heavily populated areas" I am not even a big proponent of taking away the electoral college but that's just nonsense to me. For starters we aren't talking about "all of the states" anyway, it usually comes down to a handful of states with less than 20 EC votes anyway. Secondly you are saying geography is more important than voters Thirdly, its not even a slam dunk that removing the EC would play out that way. Maybe our cities would see an uptick in voting to mirror the rest of the country because people know their votes matter. - the one thing I'll say about the EC that I do believe is a good thing is that it produces a clear winner. THAT is the best reason for keeping it and THAT is the reason it was developed in the first place. Not to make geography more important than votes
I'm saying we're the united states not the united people of America. I'm saying we're not a democracy.
of course we're not a democracy.. And changing the EC would not mean that in any way we still elect officials to make our laws. But okay let me ask you something different then. If you believe the EC is important because you believe in the idea of "fairly" representing all areas, do you have a problem with the winner-take-all format of the delegates? seems like you would be against that as well. Why should all the EC votes in Iowa go to one candidate just because they are "dictated" (to use your words) by the more heavily populated Des Moines...?
Well we are voting for one position. Do I like it when NYC keeps voting for Cuomo the homo when upstate is almost all red? No. I think the electoral college gives us more of a voice than the House of Representatives voting for us would
Well my reason for suggesting that is that it doesn't have to be winner take all in the electoral college. In fact it wasn't for most states initially. The electors were split by districts within the states, some congressional districts some not. Now 48 of the 50 states do it winner-take-all which is contrary and opposing ideas to your suggestion as to why the electoral college is necessary and "great". at best its confusing and it negates itself. Personally I think it is worse because it leaves us susceptible to factions taking control and it discourages voters but that's just my opinion. It's certainly not "great" though and could use some re-thought without dismissing the thought of those who feel that way as sore losers. As James Madison said about our presidential election process and the electoral college... (few years before his death, after he both helped ratify the current system and benefit from it by being elected): "a solid improvement of it is a desideratum that ought to be welcomed by all enlightened patriots"
Well I don't see many people suggesting improvement of the EC, mostly just people saying we should get rid of it and go with the popular vote.
Scrapping it and going with popular vote would be a massive fundamental change that empowers the wrong people IMO. And when I say wrong people, I'm trying my best to be nice.
It empowers highly populated metropolitan areas and leaves the rest of the country at their mercy. Tyranny of the majority and a path similar to the fall of the Romans to follow.
I don't like HiIlary or Trump, I just think the election system is a sham, and it's been that way for a while. It's set up so that only swing states matter and that 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance. And no, there is nothing that says constitutional republics HAVE to have an electoral college. The only real requirement is that the representatives must be elected by the people and have a consitution. With electoral college, they are only elected by a small percentage of people that live in swing states, so that is contradictory when somebody wins the popular vote but loses the election. Was the candidate then REALLY elected by the people?
I think it empowers less populated fractions of the country and leaves the rest of us at their mercy. Tyranny of the minority and all that. and the Romans fell for a number of reasons, some of them similar to things that came out of this election IMO but I don't see how electoral college applies but I am interested to hear your elaboration of that point.
I keep hearing this argument, but why does it matter how heavily populated an area is? Each person is an individual capable of making their own decisions and doing their own research on who they prefer as president. Moving to a large city doesn't automatically make you liberal. Basically, this penalizes people for choosing to live in a fast paced, heavily populated, booming area. For the many folks that love that lifestyle, it's unfair to have their votes count less than somebody who chooses not to. Reforming the electoral college could help make conservative votes in big cities count, as well as liberal votes from out in the country. It could also make 3rd parties relevant again. How could you not want that? Don't you live in NY?
Because we're a nation of states and many states would have no voice if you went with the popular vote.
States are inanimate objects. People matter. I would even be okay with keeping the electoral college if the electoral points were consistent with the populations across the board but they aren't. The president is federal. There is no reason to split up all the states as they are to elect somebody that runs the entire country.
