Half of US population lives in 9 states.

[cubby]

Well you see... the land became sentient and so we must respect it!

ROFL - exactly!

The people who argue in favor of the EC are intellectually bankrupt and morally compromised. The essence of the EC in modern times comes down to one person's vote being worth more than another's.

[Independent voter]

Drove across Texas, New Mexico and Arizona once, there are places in this country where you can drive all day and not see another soul on the highway.

[Captain N]

ROFL - exactly!

The people who argue in favor of the EC are intellectually bankrupt and morally compromised. The essence of the EC in modern times comes down to one person's vote being worth more than another's.

Well you know that having a system where everyone's vote means the same for the representative of our entire nation would mean that one political party would have to stop being intellectually bankrupt and morally compromised and win based on actual policies instead of an outdated system.

[cubby]

Drove across Texas, New Mexico and Arizona once, there are places in this country where you can drive all day and not see another soul on the highway.

Exactly. Which is why the EC should be abolished. Outdated. Gives land voting rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Well you know that having a system where everyone's vote means the same for the representative of our entire nation would mean that one political party would have to stop being intellectually bankrupt and morally compromised and win based on actual policies instead of an outdated system.

And considering that same party - the GOP - is always trying to take people's vote away. It's no surprise that the GOP is always backing the EC. And why we'll more than likely still have it in a hundred years. Unless of course we become Gilead.

[Masark]

https://geoisp.com/us/

Facts disagree with you.

Those maps aren't facts.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/24/1...ss-competition

[Kellhound]

A town is a human settlement. Towns are generally larger than villages but smaller than cities, though the criteria to distinguish them vary considerably between different parts of the world.

A city is a large human settlement.[4][5] Cities generally have extensive systems for housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, and communication. Their density facilitates interaction between people, government organizations and businesses, sometimes benefiting different parties in the process.

"In the United States, an incorporated city is a legally defined government entity. It has powers delegated by the state and county and the local laws, regulations, and policies are created and approved by the voters of the city and their representatives. A city can provide local government services to its citizens." Its a legal thing, not a size thing.

[Ghostpanther]

Texas thrives mostly because of the very liberal tech cities. I suppose they could sustain themselves off of the conservative leaning beef industry, but they certainly couldn't prop up the poorer red states with trade. In the end, even those poorer red states get most of their revenue from the cities, which are all largely liberal, along with federal funding to prop up the people who choose to live in poverty and would die of hunger without said funding.

So oil production in Texas has no bearing on their GDP? And only liberals own tech companies?

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL - exactly!

The people who argue in favor of the EC are intellectually bankrupt and morally compromised. The essence of the EC in modern times comes down to one person's vote being worth more than another's.

So the founding fathers of this nation where intellectually bankrupt and morally compromised? How is it any different today in principle than it was in the 1700's, 1800's,1900's? And you are always free to push to change it. As people have been down thru our 240+ years of existence as a nation.

[Stormdash]

I love it when people are so bad at math they think it's ok for a vote in New Hamshire to be worth four times that of a vote in Texas. But please continue with your delusions about how "fair" the EC is - you and your Trumpkin ilk love it because it's the only way the GOP gets someone in the White House.

Or should one person's vote be worth less than anothers? Because that's how the EC works.

TFW people are so palpably ignorant of our system of government they think that "a vote in Texas" is even measured against "a vote in New Hampshire" to begin with.

The only promise the law ever has made, does make, and arguably even could make under the Constitution as written is that your vote in New Hampshire counts the same as every other vote in New Hampshire. JFC. Choosing electors is an exclusively state-specific matter. You probably don't even realize that states don't actually have to let people vote on that issue at all. I honestly would love it just for the butthurt flip-out if, say, Florida enacted a change to have the electors slated by the state legislature. You'd freak right the fuck out, no question, and it would be hilarious.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

It isn't that hard to understand if people focus less on R vs D bullshit.

The gap between the Appalachians and Rocky Mountain ranges is mostly farm land. Which means a lot of space per human. Sure along the north east edge of this gap is pretty populated, like Ohio for example, and the extreme south of it like Texas as well but inbetween their is a LOT of fields, endless fields, of mostly wheat and corn with an occasional town and even rarer city that pops up.

Aside from that the East Coast is where people have flooded into the country since before it's birth. So its obvious why people are there. The West Coast is more a duel, or even triple, edged sword. It had a huge gold rush that sent people packing thier earily. Then during WW2 a massive amount of industry, research, and finacial power was shifted west to better combat the Japanese in the duel front war, to de-centralize war industry so the Axis would have a harder time landing a knockout blow if it came to it, and make it harder for mostly German spies to see what we were up to. The West Coast also happened to already have some infrastructure in place from Mexicos time there and had a few migrant waves from Asia and Mexico that assisted it's population boom as well.

So now you just have people being born where they are, sticking around with family, sticking around where jobs are, and making a living of it.

[Ghostpanther]

TFW people are so palpably ignorant of our system of government they think that "a vote in Texas" is even measured against "a vote in New Hampshire" to begin with.

The only promise the law ever has made, does make, and arguably even could make under the Constitution as written is that your vote in New Hampshire counts the same as every other vote in New Hampshire. JFC. Choosing electors is an exclusively state-specific matter. You probably don't even realize that states don't actually have to let people vote on that issue at all. I honestly would love it just for the butthurt flip-out if, say, Florida enacted a change to have the electors slated by the state legislature. You'd freak right the fuck out, no question, and it would be hilarious.

Lol! For sure. But some want to fundamentally change America. If was not for the Constitution and the fore thought the founders put into how a amendment is done, they would do it. I for one, am thankful for the way it is done.

[Stormdash]

Lol! For sure. But some want to fundamentally change America. If was not for the Constitution and the fore thought the founders put into how a amendment is done, they would do it. I for one, am thankful for the way it is done.

I honestly would love it if we resolved people's "national popular vote" myth confusion by having the legislatures take back the role of choosing the state's electors. And repealing the 17th Amendment to have them choose the Senators as well. You as an individual citizen should only be voting for your House member in terms of federal offices.

[Ghostpanther]

I honestly would love it if we resolved people's "national popular vote" myth confusion by having the legislatures take back the role of choosing the state's electors. And repealing the 17th Amendment to have them choose the Senators as well. You as an individual citizen should only be voting for your House member in terms of federal offices.

I wouldn't have any issues with that. But I do not think you would ever get enough support to repeal the 17th Amendment.

[Spectral]

I love it when people are so bad at math they think it's ok for a vote in New Hamshire to be worth four times that of a vote in Texas. But please continue with your delusions about how "fair" the EC is - you and your Trumpkin ilk love it because it's the only way the GOP gets someone in the White House.

Or should one person's vote be worth less than anothers? Because that's how the EC works.

I'm not sure where you're getting that "four times" number from; the data I find shows New Hampshire picking up ~68% relative to national average and Texas losing ~17%. So something around double for one of the more extreme cases.

Anyway, I don't think you're engaging meaningfully with either the purpose of the electoral college or the present implementation. To induce smaller states with incentive to enter the union, they were given additional clout beyond what their population alone would dictate via both the EC and Senate. Given the formation of a nation from distinct states with different interests, that seems pretty sensible - why would a small state be interested in joining a union where they'd be utterly swamped in representation? Of course, the result isn't a maximally democratic union, but that's a feature, not a bug.

Even ignoring that history and reasoning, the present structure of elections makes a straight popular vote more challenging to implement in a coherent fashion than people seem to think. Nationalizing elections and not allowing states to put up their own counts is a huge proposition, not a minor one. Awarding states a set amount of weight (even if you think it should be proportional to population) effectively caps their ability to exert influence on national elections with various potentially corrupt practices.

There are decent arguments against these, but "hurrrr land can't vote" is just dumb.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

I wouldn't have a problem if a popular vote was put in for the presidential elections. As it stands today it feels like only a handful of states that are considered swing states determine the election and the other 75% are already determined. I wonder if that pact of states that would throw their electors at the popular vote winner if they ever hit 270 would be legal, that would be pretty cool.

I think there are way anti democratic things in the system than that like the primary process, where some states including California almost NEVER get any say in who presidential candidates are, money in politics, or the two party system are way worse.

As far having equal representation in the senate. I would not support efforts to eliminate this... Think about this: What if the EU grows even closer, and then one day the big countries bitch and moan that some of the smaller states have any sort of clout and are not totally at the mercy of the big players? I think the Connecticut compromise was a very smart way to set things up. But again I wouldn't mind the EC going away, because it isn't really big or small states where presidential elections matter there, its swing states.

[Themius]

I'm not sure where you're getting that "four times" number from; the data I find shows New Hampshire picking up ~68% relative to national average and Texas losing ~17%. So something around double for one of the more extreme cases.

Anyway, I don't think you're engaging meaningfully with either the purpose of the electoral college or the present implementation. To induce smaller states with incentive to enter the union, they were given additional clout beyond what their population alone would dictate via both the EC and Senate. Given the formation of a nation from distinct states with different interests, that seems pretty sensible - why would a small state be interested in joining a union where they'd be utterly swamped in representation? Of course, the result isn't a maximally democratic union, but that's a feature, not a bug.

Even ignoring that history and reasoning, the present structure of elections makes a straight popular vote more challenging to implement in a coherent fashion than people seem to think. Nationalizing elections and not allowing states to put up their own counts is a huge proposition, not a minor one. Awarding states a set amount of weight (even if you think it should be proportional to population) effectively caps their ability to exert influence on national elections with various potentially corrupt practices.

There are decent arguments against these, but "hurrrr land can't vote" is just dumb.

Considering that the power of the vote is based on which part of the land you happen to live in you are given more weight depending on just the land you are in. The entire country is "one land" sub-divided into 50 different lands that work together and right now because most people have been moving to fewer "lands" the few in the more expansive "land" get more of a say.

That type of system obviously has to die at some point else we will be looking at 70% of people be controlled by 30% because of laws made over 200 years ago.

When these laws were made we must also remember that founders didn't expect "parties" to even be a thing, though after the 2nd election they did take hold.

It is not difficult to switch to a popular vote... frankly we just need a couple more states to the join the compact and we'll have exactly that, a de-facto popular voting system.

If the current pending states join then we'd have a popular vote.
It also has support even among republicans:



Nevada may one day join, it passed both lower chambers but was vetoed, it is only a matter of time before they elect a person who may pass it. Perhaps he will be replaced by another democrat who supports popular vote.

[Spectral]

Considering that the power of the vote is based on which part of the land you happen to live in you are given more weight depending on just the land you are in. The entire country is "one land" sub-divided into 50 different lands that work together and right now because most people have been moving to fewer "lands" the few in the more expansive "land" get more of a say.

That type of system obviously has to die at some point else we will be looking at 70% of people be controlled by 30% because of laws made over 200 years ago.

When these laws were made we must also remember that founders didn't expect "parties" to even be a thing, though after the 2nd election they did take hold.

It is not difficult to switch to a popular vote... frankly we just need a couple more states to the join the compact and we'll have exactly that, a de-facto popular voting system.

If the current pending states join then we'd have a popular vote.
It also has support even among republicans:



Nevada may one day join, it passed both lower chambers but was vetoed, it is only a matter of time before they elect a person who may pass it. Perhaps he will be replaced by another democrat who supports popular vote.

It's weird that you keep referring to "land". Are you under the impression that square mileage or population density are actually part of the calculation?

[Themius]

It's weird that you keep referring to "land". Are you under the impression that square mileage or population density are actually part of the calculation?

land = the country.

Depending on where you are a resident your vote matters more based purely on what part of the land you happen to be in.

The other option is to add what was to be the original first amendment.

[Spectral]

land = the country.

Depending on where you are a resident your vote matters more based purely on what part of the land you happen to be in.

The other option is to add what was to be the original first amendment.

Why swap in "land" for "state" when the amount of land is wholly irrelevant? The relevant institution in question is a state government. The quantity of land is wholly irrelevant. Changing the boundaries of that land are wholly irrelevant.

As mentioned upthread, you're not even attempting to meaningfully engage with the realities of the political institutions in question.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

land = the country.

Depending on where you are a resident your vote matters more based purely on what part of the land you happen to be in.

The other option is to add what was to be the original first amendment.

That has nothing to do with it either, Rhode Island has the 2nd highest population density in the country and they are one of the more egregious examples you are railing against. Its just the distinction of statehood granting too much power that I think you are arguing against. Alaska is almost 20% of our land and Rhode island is like something VERY minuscule. Rhode island has about a million people and 4 electors, Alaska has about 750,000 and 3.

Yes, rural states generally benefit from the system, but not always and it is not about rural vs urban. Like my example one of the states that gets more power than they deserve is actually the 2nd most urban state in the country.

[Themius]

That has nothing to do with it either, Rhode Island has the 2nd highest population density in the country and they are one of the more egregious examples you are railing against. Its just the distinction of statehood granting too much power that I think you are arguing against. Alaska is almost 20% of our land and Rhode island is like something VERY minuscule. Rhode island has about a million people and 4 electors, Alaska has about 750,000 and 3.

Yes, rural states generally benefit from the system, but not always and it is not about rural vs urban. Like my example one of the states that gets more power than they deserve is actually the 2nd most urban state in the country.

No one is literally talking about sq milage of land....