Half of US population lives in 9 states.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

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

Sorry I got confused, by the way you are referring to states as "lands" and talking about how "expansive they are what ever. And I see now that when you said land=the country you were just clarifying your previous statements... I don't know why it is necessary to refer to the country or the various states as lands or talking about the lands voting or having sentience when we are talking about states, the word land is pretty useless in the debate. We are not talking about giving reverence to land, but STATES. But yeah my bad, you did not actually talk about size of land, but you did present it in a unnecessarily confusing way.

And you did say this earlier:

Why does one person in a rural area get more of a say than idk... 20k people in the same size area?

[Themius]

Sorry I got confused, by the way you are referring to states as "lands" and talking about how "expansive they are what ever. And I see now that when you said land=the country you were just clarifying your previous statements... I don't know why it is necessary to refer to the country or the various states as lands or talking about the lands voting or having sentience when we are talking about states, the word land is pretty useless in the debate. We are not talking about giving reverence to land, but STATES. But yeah my bad, you did not actually talk about size of land, but you did present it in a unnecessarily confusing way.

And you did say this earlier:

yeah but it isn't about sq milage, but about the fact they just live in another part of the land than I do that their vote becomes worth more because of the population of their state, it is more about density.

We are a single land, the land of a United States of America. A land of several other united lands that literally make a single country, and your vote weight fluctuates depending on where you happen to be standing which is just silly.

The rural area vote matters more than my vote because generally they get an unequal weight of votes because of where they are.

If more people lived in those areas then it wouldn't be terribly uneven but it isn't like that.

Frankly the entire bicameral system is when enacted like this is rather poor. Times have changed yet we haven't much.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

yeah but it isn't about sq milage, but about the fact they just live in another part of the land than I do that their vote becomes worth more because of the population of their state, it is more about density.

We are a single land, the land of a United States of America. A land of several other united lands that literally make a single country, and your vote weight fluctuates depending on where you happen to be standing which is just silly.

The rural area vote matters more than my vote because generally they get an unequal weight of votes because of where they are.

If more people lived in those areas then it wouldn't be terribly uneven but it isn't like that.

Frankly the entire bicameral system is when enacted like this is rather poor. Times have changed yet we haven't much.

I know you brushed it off on the first page, but they were LITERALLY having this exact same discussion in 1787. Based on a quick google search back then Delaware was the smallest at just under 60k, and Virginia was biggest at just under 700k. Today the biggest/smallest is Wyoming ~600k to California at 40 million.

So back then it was ~ 1:11 and now it is 1:66. So the difference has become more extreme for sure, but its not like the issue has completely changed. I actually support the popular vote for president, because it would eliminate a lot more problems than it would create IMO, but I do not support getting rid of equal apportionment of senate seats. I mean I am not saying it is some sort of sacred rule that cannot be touched, we of course have a system that can (but very unlikely) can change that. But changing that would fundamentally change what being a state in the US actually means.

[Themius]

I know you brushed it off on the first page, but they were LITERALLY having this exact same discussion in 1787. Based on a quick google search back then Delaware was the smallest at just under 60k, and Virginia was biggest at just under 700k. Today the biggest/smallest is Wyoming ~600k to California at 40 million.

So back then it was ~ 1:11 and now it is 1:66. So the difference has become more extreme for sure, but its not like the issue has completely changed. I actually support the popular vote for president, because it would eliminate a lot more problems than it would create IMO, but I do not support getting rid of equal apportionment of senate seats. I mean I am not saying it is some sort of sacred rule that cannot be touched, we of course have a system that can (but very unlikely) can change that. But changing that would fundamentally change what being a state in the US actually means.

At the highest level then it becomes essentially rule by minority, what if the senate refuses forever to just pass laws or refuses to appoint justices or any cabinet person unless they would like them?

[arandomuser]

I think we just need to split our country into 2 nations, the coastal nations declare independence and let middle america have their own country where they can have trump and trump jr as their dictator perpetuo and on the coast we can have american democracy.

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

At the highest level then it becomes essentially rule by minority, what if the senate refuses forever to just pass laws or refuses to appoint justices or any cabinet person unless they would like them?

Then the larger states can try to come to some sort of compromise. But yes it does have the potential to lead to some ridiculous situations where the smaller states are putting in ridiculous demands. But I mean that is the power that the larger states agreed to give to the smaller states when the country was founded to make them agree to join. I know it was a long time ago, but is the promise to Delaware that they would not be 100% at the mercy of Virginia totally irrelevant/meaningless now? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I still see the value it in it, but there is definitely potential abuse.

I think maybe implementing some sort of mechanism where the house or senate can override each other if they have like 60, 70, or 75% of the body on board would be a more elegant solution/safeguard than to simply stripping smaller states of their equal say in the Senate.

[melodramocracy]

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.

Why stop there? Let's just get rid of voting completely. Gov't for the people by the people hasn't existed in the US for centuries.

[Themius]

Then the larger states can try to come to some sort of compromise. But yes it does have the potential to lead to some ridiculous situations where the smaller states are putting in ridiculous demands. But I mean that is the power that the larger states agreed to give to the smaller states when the country was founded to make them agree to join. I know it was a long time ago, but is the promise to Delaware that they would not be 100% at the mercy of Virginia totally irrelevant/meaningless now? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I still see the value it in it, but there is definitely potential abuse.

I think maybe implementing some sort of mechanism where the house or senate can override each other if they have like 60, 70, or 75% of the body on board would be a more elegant solution/safeguard than to simply stripping smaller states of their equal say in the Senate.

I would say to strip them, we are a single country we aren't exactly like the EU yet we have an odd system that is more akin to that, than say the government of any one of the countries.

We have long moved past those times and at that time even people wanted a unicameral system there was only a compromise to form the states, but as time went on it really should have been changed at some point it is just way too antiquated.

I don't understand why states need power in the senate given what happens there affects the entire country right now we have a senate that can pass laws that nearly 60% of the country disagrees with, and it will only get worse.

[Stormdash]

About the compact -

A) it would require Congressional approval (US Constitution, Art I, section 10). Only an Art V convention can bypass Congress entirely.

B) it arguably violates the 14th Amendment as applied to anyone in State A who votes with a statewide majority but is superseded by votes from outside the state. Again, the constitutional issues for choosing electors are a state-exclusive issue,

C) it has more or less run out of states to add to get to 270 that wouldn't be affirmatively harming their own political influence. State politicians of either party are going to cringe from that, because All Politics Are Local.

- - - Updated - - -

Why stop there? Let's just get rid of voting completely. Gov't for the people by the people hasn't existed in the US for centuries.

You... realize that people have voted for Senators for less than half the nation's history, right? FFS the ignorance.

[Elegiac]

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.

The reason being...what?

- - - Updated - - -

You... realize that people have voted for Senators for less than half the nation's history, right? FFS the ignorance.

We're aware. Most of us simply don't care.

It isn't intellectually defensible to promote a political structure explicitly designed to entrench the interests of a white, propertied class.

[Stormdash]

The reason being...what?

To correctly focus the political energy of the general public on their state and local elections. The national government only exists, ultimately, as a tool for the convenience and mutual benefit of the states anyway. The House is the "people's chamber", elect it directly, fine, that's plenty of direct influence on the national government. The Senate is meant to represent the state governments, the way an ambassador represents a sovereign government to others or in the UN; that's why it is equally apportioned because all states are equal sovereigns in the union.

Note, the 17th Amendment was not intended as a project in "democracy", it was intended to be a prophylactic against graft. It has actually... failed to prevent that, but collaterally has also made several generations shockingly ignorant of why the Senate exists in the first place.

It isn't intellectually defensible to promote a political structure explicitly designed to entrench the interests of a white, propertied class.

If you think that's what the purpose of the Senate is or how it was designed, your use of "aware" in the preceding post is... dubious. If either chamber was more certain to empower "white, propertied" people, it was the House at the time it was conceived. It's also why slave-owning states wanted to count the entire slave population toward apportioning the House, to give themselves more power. Yes, everybody you ever heard complain that the Constitution is pro slavery because it CoUnTs SlAvEs As OnLy 3/5tHs HuMaN is a moron; counting only 60% of the slave population was a check on the power of slave owning states. The abolitionists didn't want to count them at all - imagine how ludicrous people would sound today if they had succeeded? "The Constitution didn't count slaves as human hur dur".

[Elegiac]

To correctly focus the political energy of the general public on their state and local elections. The national government only exists, ultimately, as a tool for the convenience and mutual benefit of the states anyway. The House is the "people's chamber", elect it directly, fine, that's plenty of direct influence on the national government. The Senate is meant to represent the state governments, the way an ambassador represents a sovereign government to others or in the UN; that's why it is equally apportioned because all states are equal sovereigns in the union.

These are means, not ends.

What is the benefit of "focusing the political energy of the general public on their state and local elections".

Note, the 17th Amendment was not intended as a project in "democracy", it was intended to be a prophylactic against graft. It has actually... failed to prevent that, but collaterally has also made several generations shockingly ignorant of why the Senate exists in the first place.

Again; we're aware of the intent. We simply don't care.

If you think that's what the purpose of the Senate is or how it was designed, your use of "aware" in the preceding post is... dubious. If either chamber was more certain to empower "white, propertied" people, it was the House at the time it was conceived. It's also why slave-owning states wanted to count the entire slave population toward apportioning the House, to give themselves more power. Yes, everybody you ever heard complain that the Constitution is pro slavery because it CoUnTs SlAvEs As OnLy 3/5tHs HuMaN is a moron; counting only 60% of the slave population was a check on the power of slave owning states. The abolitionists didn't want to count them at all - imagine how ludicrous people would sound today if they had succeeded? "The Constitution didn't count slaves as human hur dur".

No, I think that is what the purpose of the US' government structure as a whole is. The Senate and its intentionally undemocratic method of election is just a component of it.

It's also amusing how you feel the need to talk shit about people "not knowing about original intent" when you don't seem to be aware of the fact the Age of Enlightenment is over. Political philosophy has evolved past the domain of drink sodden white dudes.

[Ghostpanther]

Why stop there? Let's just get rid of voting completely. Gov't for the people by the people hasn't existed in the US for centuries.

Sure it has. Just not in the way you would prefer. Each state has representatives to congress the people vote for.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

You are going to need more than just a couple more states.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. As of July 2019, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 196 electoral votes, which is 36.4% of the Electoral College and 72.6% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

Even if the states which have it under serous consideration for passage ( having passed at least one branch of the legislature ) pass it, you still would fall short of the 270 needed*. Having been introduced, does not mean it has a serous chance of passing. Note, the states which have passed it into law, are states which a Republican candidate would more than likely not win anyway. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

*Edit. I was wrong. If those all passed it which have had it passed in one branch of their legislature. Counting Nevada,( which I forgot about. ) which has had it passed in both branches, they would have enough. But I seriously do not think it would pass in Arkansas. So it will still fall short. But the point remains, you would need more than just a couple more states. But it is certainly possible.

[Elegiac]

Sure it has. Just not in the way you would prefer. Each state has representatives to congress the people vote for.

*Certain people vote for.

US elections aren't really all that representative.

[Captain N]

*Certain people vote for.

US elections aren't really all that representative.

Just imagine a United States of America where voting was mandatory. I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't be dealing with 2/3 of the stuff we currently do.

[Elegiac]

Just imagine a United States of America where voting was mandatory. I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't be dealing with 2/3 of the stuff we currently do.

Gerrymandering and first-past-the-post voting need to be done away with, it's not really a function of nonvoters.

[Captain N]

Gerrymandering and first-past-the-post voting need to be done away with, it's not really a function of nonvoters.

At this point we'd need to overturn the Supreme Court to do away with gerrymandering.

As for FPP Voting -- would you want a system like Canada or the UK?

[Elegiac]

At this point we'd need to overturn the Supreme Court to do away with gerrymandering.

Nah, just stack it and pass laws at the state level to force a revision. Same tactic the pro-lifers use.

As for FPP Voting -- would you want a system like Canada or the UK?

More similar to Australia's, actually. Instant Runoff for the Senate, Proportional for the House.

[melodramocracy]

Sure it has. Just not in the way you would prefer. Each state has representatives to congress the people vote for.

And no legal requirement to actually vote in the way the people wish. But sure.

[cubby]

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.

What's adorable is that you write those words out and think they are logical, but they are not. What you've just said (outside your adorable gutter venacular) is that one person's vote is worth less than anothers, and that's ok, because that's how it's always been.

You're arguing what is, rather than what should be. You're arguing slavery is ok because we've always done it, rather than asking whether slavery should exist at all. The EC is the same. Who cares why the EC was created. It's now out dated and fantastically unfair. Literally giving land voting rights over people.

You then claim that the law will only ever say that. And again - I point you to slavery. Used to be ok. Now it's not. Laws change to reflect the times. So do Constitutions. The EC should be a change. And the only people fighting against it are those that still benefit from it. The GOP.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I am absolutely engaging meaningfully with regards to the EC - it's those that argue in favor of it that do not. Your statements point to that very reality.

Who cares why the EC was formed in the first place? States would not loose their Representatives or Senators if the EC were dissolved to a straight popular vote for the presidency. All that would change is that each person's vote would be equal. The reasons for joining the union are now irrelevant for the voting process regarding the President. Or do constitutions and rules not change over time?

Your only real argument now is "it would be hard" - and in your own so poetic and dignified words, that is just dump. The EC has been a target for absoltion for decades by the intellectually honest. The only people now who don't want it to go are the GOP, because it's the only way they can get someone into the White House.

There is no logical reason NOT to allow each voters vote to count equally. Everything is, as you so eloquently put it, hurrrr.