Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

[HMS Vanguard]

Which is insignificant, when you consider that Wyoming only counts for one vote anyway. "Wasted" votes from some states being locks for certain parties is certainly a bigger issue than this, but not a "problem" as such as it is intended in the design of the system.

3 votes in Wyoming they get the 2 Senators as well. But this Rural votes count 3.6 times is boulder dash. First 15% of California's population is rural and second most states have populations that are a mix of rural, urban, and suburban and mostly predominated by the latter two populations. Yes some states have all or nearly all rural populations (a feet only matched in urban by DC) but their effect on the election is minimal.

It is also worth pointing out that DC and Wyoming have roughly equal populations and have the same Electoral vote count. It is not about rural voters votes counting more even though some rural voters in Wyoming do have their votes count more, because Urban voters in Washington DC have their votes count ~3.6X as much as California as well.

Because it is not rural vs urban it is small versus large. Yes small states do gain some additional representation in Presidential elections and even more so in the Senate. Large states like New York and Virginia (then a high population state), agreed to give up some representation to ease the fears of small states being totally out voted in the national govnerment. That is the compromise we reached you want to change that amend the Constitution the process of which favors small states.

But California isnt just "urban". It has other local conditions not related to the urban/rural breakdown. Most obviously in this election, California is being locally colonised by Mexicans, who are extremely left wing. Wyoming is not. So giving Wyoming votes more weight means that a local condition in California doesn't significantly skew the results. When Mexicans diffuse more throughout the whole US, their votes will count for more.

[Spirit of Hope]

I don't think the trials of the Rural voter are such that their vote should count for 2-3+ times as much as a Urban voters. Here I'm just interested, is there any evidence that rural voters have a significantly lower turn out than urban voters?

I think the easier response would be to simply move the day of the election to a week end, which would probably help voter turn out overall. As mentioned vote by mail is a thing, though it does have some flaws that keep it from being a perfect solution.



The electoral college means that a vote in Wyoming counts for ~3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Though that isn't it's true sin, as bad as that is. The true sin of the electoral college is that it causes the existence of safe and swing states, which means candidates spend all of their time and money campaigning in 6 out of the 50 states.

The states that are safe and are swing change over time sometimes at surprising times, for instance ask Mrs. Clinton about Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those types of presumptions about safe and swing states seems to have cost Clinton the Election.

This is also the first time since 1920 that the Republicans have won the White house without losing Virginia. And the first time since 1916 the Republicans have won the White house without Nevada. These states do in fact change.

Yay they change. But you still managed to named 5 states. Out of 50. And of those you named, two were traditional swing states.

We could also look where the time and money of the candidates is spent.

2/3rds of time was in 6 states. 94% were in 12 states. Of the four states with the most people, California, Texas, Florida, and New York, only Florida got more than one visit. New York, the forth most populous state in the US, got no visits.

Image From 2004.

[HMS Vanguard]

Which is insignificant, when you consider that Wyoming only counts for one vote anyway. "Wasted" votes from some states being locks for certain parties is certainly a bigger issue than this, but not a "problem" as such as it is intended in the design of the system.

Except that wasn't the intended design of the system. As I have noted multiple times, the electoral college was set up largely because of slavery, differences in suffrage and a distrust of the legislator to choose the president given party politics. Since the former no longer are issues, and party politics has always been part of the electoral college, I see no not to switch.

What does the EC have to do with slavery?

[Spirit of Hope]

3 votes in Wyoming they get the 2 Senators as well. But this Rural votes count 3.6 times is boulder dash. First 15% of California's population is rural and second most states have populations that are a mix of rural, urban, and suburban and mostly predominated by the latter two populations. Yes some states have all or nearly all rural populations (a feet only matched in urban by DC) but their effect on the election is minimal.

It is also worth pointing out that DC and Wyoming have roughly equal populations and have the same Electoral vote count. It is not about rural voters votes counting more even though some rural voters in Wyoming do have their votes count more, because Urban voters in Washington DC have their votes count ~3.6X as much as California as well.

Because it is not rural vs urban it is small versus large. Yes small states do gain some additional representation in Presidential elections and even more so in the Senate. Large states like New York and Virginia (then a high population state), agreed to give up some representation to ease the fears of small states being totally out voted in the national govnerment. That is the compromise we reached you want to change that amend the Constitution the process of which favors small states.

But California isnt just "urban". It has other local conditions not related to the urban/rural breakdown. Most obviously in this election, California is being locally colonised by Mexicans, who are extremely left wing. Wyoming is not. So giving Wyoming votes more weight means that a local condition in California doesn't significantly skew the results. When Mexicans diffuse more throughout the whole US, their votes will count for more.

So basically the votes of legal citizens of the United States should cost less, because of their heritage. You can't vote in the United States unless you are a citizen, and there is no evidence that any real number of non citizens voting, or of fraudulent voting in general.

Except that wasn't the intended design of the system. As I have noted multiple times, the electoral college was set up largely because of slavery, differences in suffrage and a distrust of the legislator to choose the president given party politics. Since the former no longer are issues, and party politics has always been part of the electoral college, I see no not to switch.

What does the EC have to do with slavery?

Slaves don't count in a popular vote. Because of the 3/5ths compromise they do count for the proportioning of legislators. The electoral college numbers are based on the states number of legislators. Thus under the electoral college slaves counted towards a states population, thus giving slave states more power in the electoral college.

[HMS Vanguard]

But California isnt just "urban". It has other local conditions not related to the urban/rural breakdown. Most obviously in this election, California is being locally colonised by Mexicans, who are extremely left wing. Wyoming is not. So giving Wyoming votes more weight means that a local condition in California doesn't significantly skew the results. When Mexicans diffuse more throughout the whole US, their votes will count for more.

So basically the votes of legal citizens of the United States should cost less, because of their heritage. You can't vote in the United States unless you are a citizen, and there is no evidence that any real number of non citizens voting, or of fraudulent voting in general.

It's not specific to this situation, but acts to suppress the influence of all purely local trends. Suppose one city had a massive birth rate (Salt Lake City, for instance, which is solid Republican); the EC would also damp the electoral effect of this. Specifically, as Utah is already overrepresented in the EC, even a large population increase in Utah will have no effect on its representation.

By the way, Salt Lake City DOES have a very high birth rate of Republicans, uniquely high in the US.

What does the EC have to do with slavery?

Slaves don't count in a popular vote. Because of the 3/5ths compromise they do count for the proportioning of legislators. The electoral college numbers on based on the states number of legislators. Thus under the electoral college slaves counted towards a states population, thus giving slave states more power in the electoral college.

I don't agree. The 3/5 compromise probably requires the casting of some kind of synthetic votes, but doesn't require that they be small number integers. You could simply have a system whereby NY casts 10 million (or whatever) EC votes, Virginia casts 8 million (or whatever), etc., and you could adjust those votes up and down as you like to reflect unfree persons represented thereby.

[Spirit of Hope]

So basically the votes of legal citizens of the United States should cost less, because of their heritage. You can't vote in the United States unless you are a citizen, and there is no evidence that any real number of non citizens voting, or of fraudulent voting in general.

It's not specific to this situation, but acts to suppress the influence of all purely local trends. Suppose one city had a massive birth rate (Salt Lake City, for instance, which is solid Republican); the EC would also damp the electoral effect of this. Specifically, as Utah is already overrepresented in the EC, even a large population increase in Utah will have no effect on its representation.

By the way, Salt Lake City DOES have a very high birth rate of Republicans, uniquely high in the US.

And why should there votes be dampened? Really my stance is simple, every citizens vote should be equal in power. Every citizen should be heard equally. There is, to me, no acceptable reason to effectively disenfranchise some citizens, and give more power to others.

Slaves don't count in a popular vote. Because of the 3/5ths compromise they do count for the proportioning of legislators. The electoral college numbers on based on the states number of legislators. Thus under the electoral college slaves counted towards a states population, thus giving slave states more power in the electoral college.

I don't agree. The 3/5 compromise probably requires the casting of some kind of synthetic votes, but doesn't require that they be small number integers. You could simply have a system whereby NY casts 10 million (or whatever) EC votes, Virginia casts 8 million (or whatever), etc., and you could adjust those votes up and down as you like to reflect unfree persons represented thereby.

You need to learn how the electoral college works then. All electoral college votes go to whoever wins the state, there are only 538 electors. The number of votes a state gets is based on it's number of representatives, house plus senate. Under the 3/5ths compromise slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person when proportioning the number of house representatives to the states.

What this leads to is that slave states get more power proportional to their free population, because they get more votes in the house. It also means they get more power in the electoral college.

This is not disputed, this is historical fact.

[HMS Vanguard]

It's not specific to this situation, but acts to suppress the influence of all purely local trends. Suppose one city had a massive birth rate (Salt Lake City, for instance, which is solid Republican); the EC would also damp the electoral effect of this. Specifically, as Utah is already overrepresented in the EC, even a large population increase in Utah will have no effect on its representation.

By the way, Salt Lake City DOES have a very high birth rate of Republicans, uniquely high in the US.

And why should there votes be dampened? Really my stance is simple, every citizens vote should be equal in power. Every citizen should be heard equally. There is, to me, no acceptable reason to effectively disenfranchise some citizens, and give more power to others.

So that governments reflect a broad consensus in the country and not a handful of local interests against the rest of the country.

I don't agree. The 3/5 compromise probably requires the casting of some kind of synthetic votes, but doesn't require that they be small number integers. You could simply have a system whereby NY casts 10 million (or whatever) EC votes, Virginia casts 8 million (or whatever), etc., and you could adjust those votes up and down as you like to reflect unfree persons represented thereby.

You need to learn how the electoral college works then. All electoral college votes go to whoever wins the state, there are only 538 electors. The number of votes a state gets is based on it's number of representatives, house plus senate. Under the 3/5ths compromise slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person when proportioning the number of house representatives to the states.

What this leads to is that slave states get more power proportional to their free population, because they get more votes in the house. It also means they get more power in the electoral college.

This is not disputed, this is historical fact.

I know how the electoral college works. You have not read my post. Nothing in the electoral college system requires that there be only 538 electoral college votes. It's only the fact that there are far fewer electoral college votes than individual ballots that means some states are overrepresented and means that electoral college votes cannot be cast in proportion to the popular vote in each state respectively. This has nothing to do with the 3/5 compromise.

[Free Missouri]

wouldn't have to be a massive bureaucracy. You'd just have to show your proof of service/citizenship to the poll workers. A photo ID that you'd automatically get upon finishing your term satisfactorily (not getting canned/drummed out for bad conduct, etc. etc. etc.)

Surely you must be joking. Who do you think would be tracking each of agencies you support for counting towards becoming a citizen. Who defines, writes, prints, and grades the philosophy exams? Its not like you can accomplish that without bureaucracy. Further, you'd need more people to cross check the citizenship documents, which is more people you'd need to hire.

Citizens would be hired as teachers after their term to be in charge of the philosophy class so long as they stuck to the curriculum setting out the principles and reason behind the constitution of this area, if such a citizen began to oppose the system in the classroom, then it would be called in to question if they are truly understanding and willing to stand by the idea that the franchise is authority and authority should only be given when it is matched in responsibility. Again, the philosophy/government class would be an up/down pass/fail class, no lengthy standardized exams, it would be focused solely on the system of government and why it is set up as so principle-wise (which is more than I can say for modern civics classes based on both parties continually giving up writes and weakening the constitution.). If an issue was brought up, a very small team of citizens would be gathered to investigate.

The tracking of each federal service eligible for citizenship? That would be a matter of statutory law capable of being changed by congress, (with some constitutionally guaranteed ways of service that would be obvious like a more discipline-heavy FEMA Corps, US Military, and Peace Corps) A short, school-handbook-sized document would offer solutions to the various possible situations like medical discharge from one of the intensive service (be transferred to a service you'd be capable of functioning in) or bad conduct discharge (be discharged with necessary punitive actions), or unsatisfactory service (For whatever reason you either go awol (outside of deployment and without other crimes involved) or willingly leave the service before end-of-term) discharge (which would be a non-punitive discharge in which you simply are denied a second chance at citizenship). Any further rules would be set forth by the oversight apparati of the agencies (UCMJ, whatever codes of conduct are developed for the other federal services)

[Free Missouri]

wouldn't have to be a massive bureaucracy. You'd just have to show your proof of service/citizenship to the poll workers. A photo ID that you'd automatically get upon finishing your term satisfactorily (not getting canned/drummed out for bad conduct, etc. etc. etc.)

Yeah but city folk like me should have our votes count less or not at all because we don't grow the food even though we provide you with so much other stuff. We should have to
bend to your values

only if we're going to treat the franchise like it's an irrevocable right that all citizens should have ( and citizenship like it is something that all residents born in a country should automatically have) and thus allow people with a weak or disdainful understanding of personal responsibility destroy the constitution because of their lack of an ability to have the government give them personal responsibility

[Southeastern Rhodesia]

No, I don't think so. I notice it's only being brought up because Clinton lost, and of course it isn't perfect, but what is? I understand, the current system means candidates only have to campaign in swing states to win, but if there was a popular vote system, the candidates would only have to campaign in large urban areas or states with high populations, so it would favour cities like NY, LA etc while leaving smaller states for dead. The Clinton camp needs to accept defeat and move on for the good of the country. As you may have guessed, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton (or the Democrats in general) however I applaud the fact that she's accepted the result with good grace, her supporters should follow suit.

People also say "just because it works doesn't mean it's right", and that's fair enough. Same goes for direct democracy, it works, but that doesn't mean it's the right system. In Europe, there are sometimes over 10 political groups in the parliament at one time, and each they join into generic centre left or centre right coalitions, diluting the other parties, and also prevents a lot from getting done.

I think the Clinton camp needs to accept the loss and move on, as well as learn from their mistakes. Clinton ran as an entitled queen, as if she had some sort of divine right to the presidency, and lost thanks to it. The EC isn't perfect- but neither is a popular vote system.

[San Lumen]

Yeah but city folk like me should have our votes count less or not at all because we don't grow the food even though we provide you with so much other stuff. We should have to
bend to your values

only if we're going to treat the franchise like it's an irrevocable right that all citizens should have ( and citizenship like it is something that all residents born in a country should automatically have) and thus allow people with a weak or disdainful understanding of personal responsibility destroy the constitution because of their lack of an ability to have the government give them personal responsibility

Yes the franchise is something every citizen should have once they reach 18 without any attempts whatsoever to prevent it and be actively encouraged to vote. And yes if you are born in a country you should automatically be a citizen of that country.

I have different value and issues and needs than rural folk being a city dweller. That does not mean my vote should count less than yours or I should have no vote or representation at all. all votes should count equally. There are things called listening and compromise and bipartisanship. We once had it in the United States but now it seems its gone in favor of disenfranchisement, obstruction and blind hatred because people disagree with you.

If the Founding Fathers of America or other great Presidents and states people could see the state of America today and animosity we have towards each other they would be in Tears. My three favorite Presidents John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt would be crying if they were alive today.

[Spirit of Hope]

And why should there votes be dampened? Really my stance is simple, every citizens vote should be equal in power. Every citizen should be heard equally. There is, to me, no acceptable reason to effectively disenfranchise some citizens, and give more power to others.

So that governments reflect a broad consensus in the country and not a handful of local interests against the rest of the country.

That is an argument against the electoral college. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes. Donald trump won the Electoral college by a margin of less than 100,000 is key swing states. The electoral college makes it so local interests in swing states are more important then broad national appeal. You only need to win a state by 1 vote to get all of it's electoral votes.

You need to learn how the electoral college works then. All electoral college votes go to whoever wins the state, there are only 538 electors. The number of votes a state gets is based on it's number of representatives, house plus senate. Under the 3/5ths compromise slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person when proportioning the number of house representatives to the states.

What this leads to is that slave states get more power proportional to their free population, because they get more votes in the house. It also means they get more power in the electoral college.

This is not disputed, this is historical fact.

I know how the electoral college works. You have not read my post. Nothing in the electoral college system requires that there be only 538 electoral college votes. It's only the fact that there are far fewer electoral college votes than individual ballots that means some states are overrepresented and means that electoral college votes cannot be cast in proportion to the popular vote in each state respectively. This has nothing to do with the 3/5 compromise.

The number of electors is set by the Constitution of the United States. It is the number of the house of representatives plus the members of congress. DC counts as a state for the EC so it get's three votes. The only way to increase the numbers in the EC is to either make new states or to increase the size of the house.

A states EC votes is equal to it's senators and it's house members. This means the minimum it can have is 3.

The 3/5ths compromise has to do with how the slave states gained from the electoral college. Because it meant they could count slaves towards their population, and thus get more representatives in the house. Which means more votes in the EC. In a popular vote system those slaves couldn't vote, and thus couldn't give the slave states more pull in a presidential election.

[Free Missouri]

only if we're going to treat the franchise like it's an irrevocable right that all citizens should have ( and citizenship like it is something that all residents born in a country should automatically have) and thus allow people with a weak or disdainful understanding of personal responsibility destroy the constitution because of their lack of an ability to have the government give them personal responsibility

Yes the franchise is something every citizen should have once they reach 18 without any attempts whatsoever to prevent it and be actively encouraged to vote. And yes if you are born in a country you should automatically be a citizen of that country.

I have different value and issues and needs than rural folk being a city dweller. That does not mean my vote should count less than yours or I should have no vote or representation at all. all votes should count equally. There are things called listening and compromise and bipartisanship. We once had it in the United States but now it seems its gone in favor of disenfranchisement, obstruction and blind hatred because people disagree with you.

If the Founding Fathers of America or other great Presidents and states people could see the state of America today and animosity we have towards each other they would be in Tears. My three favorite Presidents John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt would be crying if they were alive today.

Except you have to realize that these people are being entrusted with electing the people capable of declaring war, or carrying out actions which would lead others to declare war on us (Clinton's/Christie's/Every other Establishment candidate's No Fly Zone).

I'm sorry, but I think that one should have to show a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the whole before allowed to vote. To understand one's personal responsibility before electing people who will just take personal responsibility away from everyone.

I think that the franchise is too valuable, too dangerous, to be handed to people just for being born in a certain place or passing a silly test (certainly should not be a birthright for people who can't even pass the damn test). Voting is authority, force, it is exercising your will on someone else. Therefore you should have to prove that you are capable of understanding and sticking to personal responsibility as a principle before you are allowed to exercise that will on others.

Democracy has failed. Look at "Democratic" Iraq, look at europe, look at South America. Democracy has failed, autocracy and totalitarianism has failed. it's time for a limited-franchise meritocracy based on willingness to perform grueling, hard, difficult, and in some cases dangerous public service for others to prove a dedication to personal responsibility.

[Spirit of Hope]

No, I don't think so. I notice it's only being brought up because Clinton lost, and of course it isn't perfect, but what is? I understand, the current system means candidates only have to campaign in swing states to win, but if there was a popular vote system, the candidates would only have to campaign in large urban areas or states with high populations, so it would favour cities like NY, LA etc while leaving smaller states for dead. The Clinton camp needs to accept defeat and move on for the good of the country. As you may have guessed, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton (or the Democrats in general) however I applaud the fact that she's accepted the result with good grace, her supporters should follow suit.

I have been against the electoral college for years. I didn't vote for Clinton. A popular vote system would mean that candidates would have to campaign in the top 70 urban centers, minimum, to have a hope of winning. These urban centers are located across 38 states. The popular vote is more representative.

People also say "just because it works doesn't mean it's right", and that's fair enough. Same goes for direct democracy, it works, but that doesn't mean it's the right system. In Europe, there are sometimes over 10 political groups in the parliament at one time, and each they join into generic centre left or centre right coalitions, diluting the other parties, and also prevents a lot from getting done.

Good thing we aren't talking about direct democracy, but instead about making just the president run for office across the entire united states not just swing states.

[Nerotysia]

Well, I guess I'll jump back in again. I was enjoying my night too much anyway.

No, I don't think so. I notice it's only being brought up because Clinton lost,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've brought it up before. And I'm not really a Clinton supporter.

I understand, the current system means candidates only have to campaign in swing states to win, but if there was a popular vote system, the candidates would only have to campaign in large urban areas or states with high populations, so it would favour cities like NY, LA etc while leaving smaller states for dead.

No.

As has been pointed out before, city folk do not make up a majority of the US population. Now, if you include all metropolitan areas in the US, and not just the cities themselves, then yes, those people do make up a majority of the population, but there's a world of difference between the suburbs and the cities, and ignoring that diversity is rather silly.

If your concern is that the needs of rural voters will be ignored because they are a minority, fine. There are a variety of better ways to ensure rural voters are well-represented besides the Electoral College. For example, I quite like CGPGrey's solution - instead of electing the President with 50% of the national popular vote, why not elect him/her with 60%? Several voting systems could accommodate such a margin of victory - STV, for example - and a higher victory threshold would ensure that the candidates would need to build a broad appeal, and could not afford to ignore rural voters entirely.

The Clinton camp needs to accept defeat and move on for the good of the country.

Agreed. Applying a new system of election rules ex-post-facto would be terrible for the country.

People also say "just because it works doesn't mean it's right", and that's fair enough. Same goes for direct democracy, it works, but that doesn't mean it's the right system. In Europe, there are sometimes over 10 political groups in the parliament at one time, and each they join into generic centre left or centre right coalitions, diluting the other parties, and also prevents a lot from getting done.

Do you have any evidence for these claims? "Diluting the parties" and "prevents a lot from getting done" aren't very specific criticisms. In fact, they sound more like some vague bullshit from some random dude on the internet, or at your local bar. They might have some truth in them, but it's impossible to tell because they're so vague.

Personally, I would prefer ten parties, because it would allow me a greater variety of options.

[San Lumen]

Yes the franchise is something every citizen should have once they reach 18 without any attempts whatsoever to prevent it and be actively encouraged to vote. And yes if you are born in a country you should automatically be a citizen of that country.

I have different value and issues and needs than rural folk being a city dweller. That does not mean my vote should count less than yours or I should have no vote or representation at all. all votes should count equally. There are things called listening and compromise and bipartisanship. We once had it in the United States but now it seems its gone in favor of disenfranchisement, obstruction and blind hatred because people disagree with you.

If the Founding Fathers of America or other great Presidents and states people could see the state of America today and animosity we have towards each other they would be in Tears. My three favorite Presidents John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt would be crying if they were alive today.

Except you have to realize that these people are being entrusted with electing the people capable of declaring war, or carrying out actions which would lead others to declare war on us (Clinton's/Christie's/Every other Establishment candidate's No Fly Zone).

I'm sorry, but I think that one should have to show a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the whole before allowed to vote. To understand one's personal responsibility before electing people who will just take personal responsibility away from everyone.

I think that the franchise is too valuable, too dangerous, to be handed to people just for being born in a certain place or passing a silly test (certainly should not be a birthright for people who can't even pass the damn test). Voting is authority, force, it is exercising your will on someone else. Therefore you should have to prove that you are capable of understanding and sticking to personal responsibility as a principle before you are allowed to exercise that will on others.

Democracy has failed. Look at "Democratic" Iraq, look at europe, look at South America. Democracy has failed, autocracy and totalitarianism has failed. it's time for a limited-franchise meritocracy based on willingness to perform grueling, hard, difficult, and in some cases dangerous public service for others to prove a dedication to personal responsibility.

So basically people you don't agree with or share different values and opinions from you shouldn't vote? Got it. Basically only people who agree with you should vote. I work for the state government I will have you know but because Im a city dweller i shouldn't be able to vote.
Makes sense but we should have to bend to your valued and opinions and we pay for all your stuff but you don't pay for ours. Sounds just like dictatorship.
And what is wrong with South America and Europe? They have elected some great leaders like Michele Bachelet in Chile, Angela Merkel in Germany, Theresa May in the United Kingdom.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Yes the franchise is something every citizen should have once they reach 18 without any attempts whatsoever to prevent it and be actively encouraged to vote. And yes if you are born in a country you should automatically be a citizen of that country.

I have different value and issues and needs than rural folk being a city dweller. That does not mean my vote should count less than yours or I should have no vote or representation at all. all votes should count equally. There are things called listening and compromise and bipartisanship. We once had it in the United States but now it seems its gone in favor of disenfranchisement, obstruction and blind hatred because people disagree with you.

If the Founding Fathers of America or other great Presidents and states people could see the state of America today and animosity we have towards each other they would be in Tears. My three favorite Presidents John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt would be crying if they were alive today.

Except you have to realize that these people are being entrusted with electing the people capable of declaring war, or carrying out actions which would lead others to declare war on us (Clinton's/Christie's/Every other Establishment candidate's No Fly Zone).

I'm sorry, but I think that one should have to show a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the whole before allowed to vote. To understand one's personal responsibility before electing people who will just take personal responsibility away from everyone.

I think that the franchise is too valuable, too dangerous, to be handed to people just for being born in a certain place or passing a silly test (certainly should not be a birthright for people who can't even pass the damn test). Voting is authority, force, it is exercising your will on someone else. Therefore you should have to prove that you are capable of understanding and sticking to personal responsibility as a principle before you are allowed to exercise that will on others.

Democracy has failed. Look at "Democratic" Iraq, look at europe, look at South America. Democracy has failed, autocracy and totalitarianism has failed. it's time for a limited-franchise meritocracy based on willingness to perform grueling, hard, difficult, and in some cases dangerous public service for others to prove a dedication to personal responsibility.

Interesting idea. How long before the Citizens under this new system turn into welfare queens who belittle their opponents with billy clubs and firing squads?

[San Lumen]

Except you have to realize that these people are being entrusted with electing the people capable of declaring war, or carrying out actions which would lead others to declare war on us (Clinton's/Christie's/Every other Establishment candidate's No Fly Zone).

I'm sorry, but I think that one should have to show a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the whole before allowed to vote. To understand one's personal responsibility before electing people who will just take personal responsibility away from everyone.

I think that the franchise is too valuable, too dangerous, to be handed to people just for being born in a certain place or passing a silly test (certainly should not be a birthright for people who can't even pass the damn test). Voting is authority, force, it is exercising your will on someone else. Therefore you should have to prove that you are capable of understanding and sticking to personal responsibility as a principle before you are allowed to exercise that will on others.

Democracy has failed. Look at "Democratic" Iraq, look at europe, look at South America. Democracy has failed, autocracy and totalitarianism has failed. it's time for a limited-franchise meritocracy based on willingness to perform grueling, hard, difficult, and in some cases dangerous public service for others to prove a dedication to personal responsibility.

Interesting idea. How long before the Citizens under this new system turn into welfare queens who belittle their opponents with billy clubs and firing squads?

Or before people rebel from farmers expressing their will and us city dwellers get no say but give them so much like their phones, apps on them, their clothing, cars, and news networks like Fox News.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Interesting idea. How long before the Citizens under this new system turn into welfare queens who belittle their opponents with billy clubs and firing squads?

Or before people rebel from farmers expressing their will and us city dwellers get no say but give them so much like their phones, apps on them, their clothing, cars, and news networks like Fox News.

Under that system I wonder how long it will be before feudalism sets in. Either way, it's a piece of shit.

[San Lumen]

Or before people rebel from farmers expressing their will and us city dwellers get no say but give them so much like their phones, apps on them, their clothing, cars, and news networks like Fox News.

Under that system I wonder how long it will be before feudalism sets in. Either way, it's a piece of shit.

Not to mention undemocratic, unfair and dictatorial.

[Greed and Death]

3 votes in Wyoming they get the 2 Senators as well. But this Rural votes count 3.6 times is boulder dash. First 15% of California's population is rural and second most states have populations that are a mix of rural, urban, and suburban and mostly predominated by the latter two populations. Yes some states have all or nearly all rural populations (a feet only matched in urban by DC) but their effect on the election is minimal.

It is also worth pointing out that DC and Wyoming have roughly equal populations and have the same Electoral vote count. It is not about rural voters votes counting more even though some rural voters in Wyoming do have their votes count more, because Urban voters in Washington DC have their votes count ~3.6X as much as California as well.

Of the smallest states, and DC, they are generally rural, especially in comparison to the states with large populations. Because most of that population tends to be urbanized.

But really the vote diffrence isn't the major problem of the electoral college, it is the safe vs. swing state issue that is the larger problem.

Because it is not rural vs urban it is small versus large. Yes small states do gain some additional representation in Presidential elections and even more so in the Senate. Large states like New York and Virginia (then a high population state), agreed to give up some representation to ease the fears of small states being totally out voted in the national govnerment. That is the compromise we reached you want to change that amend the Constitution the process of which favors small states.

That isn't actually why the electoral college was implemented historically. It was largely about differences in suffrage between states, slavery, and a belief that electors would be above party politics. Since the first two issues have largely disappeared, it is only the later we must be concerned with. I think it is obvious to say that electors are involved in party politics, thus removing the last reason for using the electoral college.

Lets look at the numbers shall we. There are 7 states with 3 electors representing the most skewed.
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Looking at data provided by the University of Iowa
We see the states break down between rural and urban as follows:
Alaska 66% Urban
Delaware 83% Urban
Montana 55% urban
North Dakota 59% urban
South Dakota 56% Urban
Vermont 38% Urban
Wyoming 64% urban

Only one state of the most heavily skewed states is majority rural and that is the state that voted for the Democrat.
source: http://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/popu ... pct-states

I am sorry the premise on which your argument is built is counter factual.


Keep in mind the slavery argument is fairly recent is based upon personal correspondence between two members of the convention, and not on the convention notes. So you should be rather careful in claiming knowledge of the entire convention's reasoning.

To quote the convention notes

Mr. MADISON was apprehensive that by requiring both the President and Vice President to be chosen out of the five highest candidates, the attention of the electors would be turned too much to making candidates, instead of giving their votes in order to a definitive choice. Should this turn be given to the business, the election would in fact be consigned to the Senate altogether. It would have the effect, at the same time, he observed, of giving the nomination of the candidates to the largest States.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/conv ... es/0904-2/

You can look at the other days as well but the argument was almost always big vs small states. Also the argument that it was about slaves seems to misunderstand how electors were originally selected.
Compare this map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... brewer.gif

with this map

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... brewer.png

and this map

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ty1820.gif

Grey means the county did not get a popular vote. States that were all Grey did not hold a popular vote.
You will notice the gradual graying as you progress back in time. That's because only a limited number of states used the popular vote before 1824.

http://2012election.procon.org/view.res ... eID=004332


Seems pretty clear the Presidency was picked like the Senate originally was via state Legislatures, so it seems very unlikely that the drafters of the Constitution would be concerned about the popular vote if none of them were intending to use the popular vote.

[Free Missouri]

Under that system I wonder how long it will be before feudalism sets in. Either way, it's a piece of shit.

Not to mention undemocratic, unfair and dictatorial.

"Unfair" despite the fact that everyone has the chance to earn franchise, it's just that they have to show personal responsibility to earn it and actually give two shits about their country.

undemocratic because democracy is a failure

and it's not dictatorial because it still would have a republican system of government, simply the franchise would be limited to those who actually took a modicum of personal responsibility. Something most people, even a nice chunk of rural people in certain areas, wouldn't recognize if it bit them in the ass.

[Free Missouri]

Interesting idea. How long before the Citizens under this new system turn into welfare queens who belittle their opponents with billy clubs and firing squads?

Or before people rebel from farmers expressing their will and us city dwellers get no say but give them so much like their phones, apps on them, their clothing, cars, and news networks like Fox News.

Hey, the people would have the ability to earn the franchise if they did their service, and farmers wouldn't get any free ride either. you do the term, or you don't get the franchise.

[Spirit of Hope]

Of the smallest states, and DC, they are generally rural, especially in comparison to the states with large populations. Because most of that population tends to be urbanized.

But really the vote diffrence isn't the major problem of the electoral college, it is the safe vs. swing state issue that is the larger problem.



That isn't actually why the electoral college was implemented historically. It was largely about differences in suffrage between states, slavery, and a belief that electors would be above party politics. Since the first two issues have largely disappeared, it is only the later we must be concerned with. I think it is obvious to say that electors are involved in party politics, thus removing the last reason for using the electoral college.

Lets look at the numbers shall we. There are 7 states with 3 electors representing the most skewed.
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Looking at data provided by the University of Iowa
We see the states break down between rural and urban as follows:
Alaska 66% Urban
Delaware 83% Urban
Montana 55% urban
North Dakota 59% urban
South Dakota 56% Urban
Vermont 38% Urban
Wyoming 64% urban

Only one state of the most heavily skewed states is majority rural and that is the state that voted for the Democrat.
source: http://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/popu ... pct-states

I am sorry the premise on which your argument is built is counter factual.

You are right, my argument that it is rural vs. urban is wrong.

That does not make the electoral college any better at representing the people of the United States. The electoral college is just terrible at doing that.

[Free Missouri]

Except you have to realize that these people are being entrusted with electing the people capable of declaring war, or carrying out actions which would lead others to declare war on us (Clinton's/Christie's/Every other Establishment candidate's No Fly Zone).

I'm sorry, but I think that one should have to show a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the whole before allowed to vote. To understand one's personal responsibility before electing people who will just take personal responsibility away from everyone.

I think that the franchise is too valuable, too dangerous, to be handed to people just for being born in a certain place or passing a silly test (certainly should not be a birthright for people who can't even pass the damn test). Voting is authority, force, it is exercising your will on someone else. Therefore you should have to prove that you are capable of understanding and sticking to personal responsibility as a principle before you are allowed to exercise that will on others.

Democracy has failed. Look at "Democratic" Iraq, look at europe, look at South America. Democracy has failed, autocracy and totalitarianism has failed. it's time for a limited-franchise meritocracy based on willingness to perform grueling, hard, difficult, and in some cases dangerous public service for others to prove a dedication to personal responsibility.

So basically people you don't agree with or share different values and opinions from you shouldn't vote? Got it. Basically only people who agree with you should vote. I work for the state government I will have you know but because Im a city dweller i shouldn't be able to vote.
Makes sense but we should have to bend to your valued and opinions and we pay for all your stuff but you don't pay for ours. Sounds just like dictatorship.
And what is wrong with South America and Europe? They have elected some great leaders like Michele Bachelet in Chile, Angela Merkel in Germany, Theresa May in the United Kingdom.

And working for government, being a bureaucrat, that's not a service, that's a job. I'm talking you would have to serve as an actual servant to the people through military, FEMA Corps, Peace Corps, an actual service to the people, not being their local bureaucrat.

Theresa may is currently the only western official worth shit. Angela Merkel at least spent a few years as a loyal official of the East German communist youth organization and it shows, and now she's trying to jump to the right to somehow save the fact that her party is losing ground even, no, especially in her own state. And Bachelet isn't great, in fact I wouldn't call any socialist great. socialism as an economic system requires government intervention to create and that government intervention gives way to totalitarianism.