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

[Ranoria]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Mod Edit: Edit title to get rid of "topopular" because it was driving me crazy.

here's my thing:

If one party wins the electoral college, but loses the popular vote, then the other party is going to complain. When Bill Clinton lost it, Democrats defended it and I'm fairly sure that Republicans hated it.

Here's the facts:

-If the United States Presidential Elections were to be switched to the popular vote, then cities like new York (23 million people) and Los Angeles (18,000,000) would have more than 10% of the vote alone. States without such megacities would have no say, rural people would have no say. Hence the Electoral College. It takes in the views of the whole state and forces the candidates to go beyond influencing a mob. It's the same principal as the Senate, giving the smaller areas a say.

[San Lumen]

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.

Just working for the government makes me a bureaucrat? You don't even know what i do for the government. Michele Bachelet is a great leader and so Angela Merkel. Chile is far from socialist. Its the most conservative country in South America but still more liberal than the reddest state in America.

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.

So you can only give it to people you agree with or think like you and I as city dweller would be unable to because i can't possibly understand you rural people. How very democratic and non dictatorial.

I work for the state government but shouldn't be able to vote because i live in a big city and not a small town or on a farm. I left it behind and therefore lost my right to vote am I correct?

[Free Missouri]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Mod Edit: Edit title to get rid of "topopular" because it was driving me crazy.

here's my thing:

If one party wins the electoral college, but loses the popular vote, then the other party is going to complain. When Bill Clinton lost it, Democrats defended it and I'm fairly sure that Republicans hated it.

Here's the facts:

-If the United States Presidential Elections were to be switched to the popular vote, then cities like new York (23 million people) and Los Angeles (18,000,000) would have more than 10% of the vote alone. States without such megacities would have no say, rural people would have no say. Hence the Electoral College. It takes in the views of the whole state and forces the candidates to go beyond influencing a mob. It's the same principal as the Senate, giving the smaller areas a say.

Can't we just go to my system of tying the franchise to service to the people through Military, Disaster Response, and Humanitarian means? (Granted that would give American Samoa a massive advantage in the ruling of the nation seeing as many of their Nationals serve in the US Military and their veterans would finally have the right to call themselves "American Citizens" rather than "American Nationals")

[San Lumen]

here's my thing:

If one party wins the electoral college, but loses the popular vote, then the other party is going to complain. When Bill Clinton lost it, Democrats defended it and I'm fairly sure that Republicans hated it.

Here's the facts:

-If the United States Presidential Elections were to be switched to the popular vote, then cities like new York (23 million people) and Los Angeles (18,000,000) would have more than 10% of the vote alone. States without such megacities would have no say, rural people would have no say. Hence the Electoral College. It takes in the views of the whole state and forces the candidates to go beyond influencing a mob. It's the same principal as the Senate, giving the smaller areas a say.

Can't we just go to my system of tying the franchise to service to the people through Military, Disaster Response, and Humanitarian means? (Granted that would give American Samoa a massive advantage in the ruling of the nation seeing as many of their Nationals serve in the US Military and their veterans would finally have the right to call themselves "American Citizens" rather than "American Nationals")

And what if someone chooses not to serve in the Military or disaster relief or do humanitarian work? They don't get to vote? I work for the state government in a big city but I;m just a bureaucrat whose vote should matter less than yours or better yet according to you not vote at all.
You don't even know what i do for the state government and your making assumptions I'm some bureaucrat.

[Free Missouri]

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.

Just working for the government makes me a bureaucrat? You don't even know what i do for the government. Michele Bachelet is a great leader and so Angela Merkel. Chile is far from socialist. Its the most conservative country in South America but still more liberal than the reddest state in America.

"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.

So you can only give it to people you agree with or think like you and I as city dweller would be unable to because i can't possibly understand you rural people. How very democratic and non dictatorial.

I work for the state government but shouldn't be able to vote because i live in a big city and not a small town or on a farm. I left it behind and therefore lost my right to vote am I correct?

1st. Merkel is a horrible leader as shown by her falling support and the fact that she now is trying to lurch left and right and populist and elitist in order to try and salvage said support.

No, you shouldn't be able to vote because you haven't actually said what you do in state government, and any bureaucratic position isn't service. And a Bureaucratic position is any non-elected position in which your job is administrative or to only serve as a hand of some bureaucrat.

Service is sacrifice, it's doing hard, grueling, sometimes dangerous work because you acknowledge personal responsibility to the principles of freedom. The American Experiment has shown that pure, unlimited franchise leads to the demise of freedom for the bread lines of the welfare state and the shackles of neocon fearmongering. Democracy has failed.

Under this system I would gladly give up my franchise until such a time as I had completed a term of service. Until then I'm obligated morally to do my utmost to stop the encroachment by "moderate" republicans and leftists on the constitution and on freedom.

If someone chooses not to do service, they don't get the franchise. Simple, we'll find something for them to serve the country but if they don't want to, they don't get the franchise it's entirely voluntary.

What I've noticed in experience is that among people who argue this argument, those who fall on my side would be willing to do a 2 year of service, the opposition wouldn't.

[San Lumen]

Just working for the government makes me a bureaucrat? You don't even know what i do for the government. Michele Bachelet is a great leader and so Angela Merkel. Chile is far from socialist. Its the most conservative country in South America but still more liberal than the reddest state in America.


So you can only give it to people you agree with or think like you and I as city dweller would be unable to because i can't possibly understand you rural people. How very democratic and non dictatorial.

I work for the state government but shouldn't be able to vote because i live in a big city and not a small town or on a farm. I left it behind and therefore lost my right to vote am I correct?

1st. Merkel is a horrible leader as shown by her falling support and the fact that she now is trying to lurch left and right and populist and elitist in order to try and salvage said support.

No, you shouldn't be able to vote because you haven't actually said what you do in state government, and any bureaucratic position isn't service. And a Bureaucratic position is any non-elected position in which your job is administrative or to only serve as a hand of some bureaucrat.

Service is sacrifice, it's doing hard, grueling, sometimes dangerous work because you acknowledge personal responsibility to the principles of freedom. The American Experiment has shown that pure, unlimited franchise leads to the demise of freedom for the bread lines of the welfare state and the shackles of neocon fearmongering. Democracy has failed.

Under this system I would gladly give up my franchise until such a time as I had completed a term of service. Until then I'm obligated morally to do my utmost to stop the encroachment by "moderate" republicans and leftists on the constitution and on freedom.

If someone chooses not to do service, they don't get the franchise. Simple, we'll find something for them to serve the country but if they don't want to, they don't get the franchise it's entirely voluntary.

What I've noticed in experience is that among people who argue this argument, those who fall on my side would be willing to do a 2 year of service, the opposition wouldn't.

Well i work for the Parks department and help preserve and maintain our state parks across the state and in my city. I travel to Albany on occasion. But i'm just a government bureaucrat who doesn't do anything but help preserve our natural environment. I shouldn't have the right to vote and especially because i don't live in a small town or on a farm.

I wouldn't give up my right to vote for anything and under your unfair system you could easily pick and choose who you want to have the vote. Like those who agree with you and us urban people would be left out.

You don't like a strict popular vote because it would mean my vote was equal to yours and every state would matter instead of just a few.

I strongly suggest you run for office and make this proposal of yours a signature part of your platform.

[Nerotysia]

-If the United States Presidential Elections were to be switched to the popular vote, then cities like new York (23 million people) and Los Angeles (18,000,000) would have more than 10% of the vote alone.

That's inaccurate.

The actual city of New York contains only 8 million people. Figures in the 20-millions only come if you count all of the people within New York's metropolitan area, which is rather large:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... n_Area.png

That red area contains both urban areas and suburbs, and is a fairly diverse area. To act as though that entire collection of counties would vote in one solid bloc is absurd, given the available data:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... County.svg

The same goes for Los Angeles, which actually contains only 4 million people, unless you count the much-more-diverse metropolitan area.

Plus, you cannot win with 10% of the vote. New York and Los Angeles might seem huge, but after those two cities, the size of US urban areas drops fast.

States without such megacities would have no say,

The states would not matter in a national popular vote. Literally, state borders would be meaningless.

rural people would have no say.

Their voting power would be equivalent to the size of their population. If you feel they need extra protection, there are other ways to protect them without the Electoral College.

[Free Missouri]

1st. Merkel is a horrible leader as shown by her falling support and the fact that she now is trying to lurch left and right and populist and elitist in order to try and salvage said support.

No, you shouldn't be able to vote because you haven't actually said what you do in state government, and any bureaucratic position isn't service. And a Bureaucratic position is any non-elected position in which your job is administrative or to only serve as a hand of some bureaucrat.

Service is sacrifice, it's doing hard, grueling, sometimes dangerous work because you acknowledge personal responsibility to the principles of freedom. The American Experiment has shown that pure, unlimited franchise leads to the demise of freedom for the bread lines of the welfare state and the shackles of neocon fearmongering. Democracy has failed.

Under this system I would gladly give up my franchise until such a time as I had completed a term of service. Until then I'm obligated morally to do my utmost to stop the encroachment by "moderate" republicans and leftists on the constitution and on freedom.

If someone chooses not to do service, they don't get the franchise. Simple, we'll find something for them to serve the country but if they don't want to, they don't get the franchise it's entirely voluntary.

What I've noticed in experience is that among people who argue this argument, those who fall on my side would be willing to do a 2 year of service, the opposition wouldn't.

Well i work for the Parks department and help preserve and maintain our state parks across the state and in my city. I travel to Albany on occasion. But i'm just a government bureaucrat who doesn't do anything but help preserve our natural environment. I shouldn't have the right to vote and especially because i don't live in a small town or on a farm.

I wouldn't give up my right to vote for anything and under your unfair system you could easily pick and choose who you want to have the vote. Like those who agree with you and us urban people would be left out.

You don't like a strict popular vote because it would mean my vote was equal to yours and every state would matter instead of just a few.

I don't like a strict popular vote because I don't like democracy. The power to control the course of the nation (the vote) has proven itself too dangerous to be left in the hands of the population wholesale, especially when many idiotic voters would be hard-pressed to pass a citizenship test, but they get the vote because "oh, they were born here". Intelligence would be a horrible decider on the franchise. same for all the one's already tried: sex, property, genealogy, ethnicity, race, religion. The only test that hasn't yet been attempted is one in which one must be willing to show themselves as willing to take personal responsibility. One to put himself. to paraphrase heinlein, "between his loved home and desolation."

I'm not suggesting we base the franchise on city vs rural, though rural persons are already more inclined to serving in the military than urban persons (except for the small pacific Islands where they're more patriotic than any of us).

I'm suggesting a unique "poll tax" that anyone can pay (because everyone is capable of some form of service), that one must complete a term of service (not a job, you'd be in a uniformed service and paid a stipend when on leave, with any pay either being directed to your family if you have one or to be paid upon completion of the term, and it wouldn't be exorbitant as some jobs in the Fed Govt are, it'd be much similar to the poor pickings given to the military today.) as the price of citizenship.

[Republic of Republiks]

Let's get one thing straight; America is not a democracy. America is a republic. We elect representatives to serve our interests in the government. And we elect them in a democratic fashion. If it were a pure democracy, then all 315 million people would essentially be responsible for every facet of government behavior and direction.

With regard to the Electoral College, it is actually a solid institution because it reflects the population of states in terms of size in relation to the country as a whole. There have been multiple times in history where the popular vote was won but the Electoral College was lost, but the vast majority of times it has reflected the popular vote, generally speaking. The only reason you get results like those we see here today is because candidates focus on the individual states rather than an aggregate national total. This is exactly what the Founder's wanted due to fears of both mob rule and an overbearing federal government.

How would mob rule happen if the people were more able to choose the president? And how would the government become overbearing?

[Free Missouri]

Let's get one thing straight; America is not a democracy. America is a republic. We elect representatives to serve our interests in the government. And we elect them in a democratic fashion. If it were a pure democracy, then all 315 million people would essentially be responsible for every facet of government behavior and direction.

With regard to the Electoral College, it is actually a solid institution because it reflects the population of states in terms of size in relation to the country as a whole. There have been multiple times in history where the popular vote was won but the Electoral College was lost, but the vast majority of times it has reflected the popular vote, generally speaking. The only reason you get results like those we see here today is because candidates focus on the individual states rather than an aggregate national total. This is exactly what the Founder's wanted due to fears of both mob rule and an overbearing federal government.

How would mob rule happen if the people were more able to choose the president? And how would the government become overbearing?

democracy always ends with the people voting away their liberties to charismatic con men, community organizers, oil barons, actors, former governors, dynastic politicians, the anointed of the elite, manipulative bastards, former generals, men who happened to do decent in the job when he unwillingly took it on the first time, former bureaucrats, and ... wait.. Did I just describe every president we've had after Coolidge?

[San Lumen]

Well i work for the Parks department and help preserve and maintain our state parks across the state and in my city. I travel to Albany on occasion. But i'm just a government bureaucrat who doesn't do anything but help preserve our natural environment. I shouldn't have the right to vote and especially because i don't live in a small town or on a farm.

I wouldn't give up my right to vote for anything and under your unfair system you could easily pick and choose who you want to have the vote. Like those who agree with you and us urban people would be left out.

You don't like a strict popular vote because it would mean my vote was equal to yours and every state would matter instead of just a few.

I don't like a strict popular vote because I don't like democracy. The power to control the course of the nation (the vote) has proven itself too dangerous to be left in the hands of the population wholesale, especially when many idiotic voters would be hard-pressed to pass a citizenship test, but they get the vote because "oh, they were born here". Intelligence would be a horrible decider on the franchise. same for all the one's already tried: sex, property, genealogy, ethnicity, race, religion. The only test that hasn't yet been attempted is one in which one must be willing to show themselves as willing to take personal responsibility. One to put himself. to paraphrase heinlein, "between his loved home and desolation."

I'm not suggesting we base the franchise on city vs rural, though rural persons are already more inclined to serving in the military than urban persons (except for the small pacific Islands where they're more patriotic than any of us).

I'm suggesting a unique "poll tax" that anyone can pay (because everyone is capable of some form of service), that one must complete a term of service (not a job, you'd be in a uniformed service and paid a stipend when on leave, with any pay either being directed to your family if you have one or to be paid upon completion of the term, and it wouldn't be exorbitant as some jobs in the Fed Govt are, it'd be much similar to the poor pickings given to the military today.) as the price of citizenship.

You already said I as a city dweller should get less or no say compared to you on a farm. That's exactly what you said earlier. Plus because I work for the state government I'm a bureaucrat and that counts double against me.
and because I live in a city I'm less patriotic then you? This is why I left rural America and don't miss it one bit
A poll tax is unconstitutional and you'd have to repeal the 24th amendment.

I strongly suggest you run for office in the next election and make what your saying here a signature part of your platform

[Free Missouri]

I don't like a strict popular vote because I don't like democracy. The power to control the course of the nation (the vote) has proven itself too dangerous to be left in the hands of the population wholesale, especially when many idiotic voters would be hard-pressed to pass a citizenship test, but they get the vote because "oh, they were born here". Intelligence would be a horrible decider on the franchise. same for all the one's already tried: sex, property, genealogy, ethnicity, race, religion. The only test that hasn't yet been attempted is one in which one must be willing to show themselves as willing to take personal responsibility. One to put himself. to paraphrase heinlein, "between his loved home and desolation."

I'm not suggesting we base the franchise on city vs rural, though rural persons are already more inclined to serving in the military than urban persons (except for the small pacific Islands where they're more patriotic than any of us).

I'm suggesting a unique "poll tax" that anyone can pay (because everyone is capable of some form of service), that one must complete a term of service (not a job, you'd be in a uniformed service and paid a stipend when on leave, with any pay either being directed to your family if you have one or to be paid upon completion of the term, and it wouldn't be exorbitant as some jobs in the Fed Govt are, it'd be much similar to the poor pickings given to the military today.) as the price of citizenship.

You already said I as a city dweller should get less or no say compared to you on a farm. That's exactly what you said earlier. Plus because I work for the state government I'm a bureaucrat and that counts double against me.
and because I live in a city I'm less patriotic then you? This is why I left rural America and don't miss it one bit
A poll tax is unconstitutional and you'd have to repeal the 24th amendment.

I strongly suggest you run for office in the next election and make what your saying here a signature part of your platform

I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm. unfortunately the politics of the Anti-EC people in this cycle would perpetuate the nanny state.

I'm all for repealing the 24th and 14th amendments, and tying citizenship (and franchise) to service in a uniformed service (again, not necessarily military, and one that would be available for anyone.) Democracy is a failure.

ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------." That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area.

You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise. And I simply noted that Rural people are more likely to join the military, not more patriotic, they are, statistically, far more likely to join the military.

and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility, that's just an observation that I've noted when comparing my classmates from high school and college who, like me, are from rural areas and went to rural or small-city schools vs heavily urbanized areas and schools.

[Lavochkin]

You already said I as a city dweller should get less or no say compared to you on a farm. That's exactly what you said earlier. Plus because I work for the state government I'm a bureaucrat and that counts double against me.
and because I live in a city I'm less patriotic then you? This is why I left rural America and don't miss it one bit
A poll tax is unconstitutional and you'd have to repeal the 24th amendment.

I strongly suggest you run for office in the next election and make what your saying here a signature part of your platform

I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm. unfortunately the politics of the Anti-EC people in this cycle would perpetuate the nanny state.

I'm all for repealing the 24th and 14th amendments, and tying citizenship (and franchise) to service in a uniformed service (again, not necessarily military, and one that would be available for anyone.) Democracy is a failure.

ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------." That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area.

You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise. And I simply noted that Rural people are more likely to join the military, not more patriotic, they are, statistically, far more likely to join the military.

and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility, that's just an observation that I've noted when comparing my classmates from high school and college who, like me, are from rural areas and went to rural or small-city schools vs heavily urbanized areas and schools.

"I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm."
Under our current system, it's uneducated farmers telling college-educated SJW's living in cities what to do so I wouldn't really complain if you're an American who lives in a rural area.

"Democracy is a failure."
Please give a government system/ideology that has achieved more progress in human development and wealth than democracy.

"ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------."
And us city people are disgusted when some redneck drives in with his lifted muddied up pickup truck, parks in 3 spaces and walks around and talk like some sort of un-mannered and uneducated hillbilly trash. You get what you do.

"That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area."
Guess what? Cities are the future, it doesn't take much of an education to know that more people equal less space. Why the hell should we develop policies that support the minority? Social Darwinism baby.

"You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise."
How is disenfranchising the majority of the American population anymore more patriotic? Hell if anything, you're less patriotic since you represent the smaller portion of America. Also the fact you don't support our democracy puts you directly as an enemy of the state since our nation was founded on those principles.

"statistically, far more likely to join the military."
Cities house more people so in total numbers there will always be more soldiers from cities than rural areas. Also we have a military draft so it really doesn't matter.

"and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility,"
Never heard of such things. I went to Elementary and Middle School and currently in HS, all in a rural area and I ain't seeing any of this so called education you talk about.

[Longweather]

It's not a question of "improving", it's a question of what counts as good representation.

Popular vote always reflects the plurality view, but the plurality can be highly geographically and socially concentrated; the electoral college system ensures that votes must be reasonably spread throughout the country, and favours a strong minority candidate like Trump over a weak plurality candidate like Clinton.

I am a British citizen and in Britain we elect our parliament and hence government by an "electoral college"-like system. This system was recently endorsed by a large majority in a national referendum. It is not an expedient solution to poor communications, it is a conscious choice to have governments that reflect a wide range of people rather than just the largest number.

Fairly, decent point and clear way to describe part of the reason for the weighting and electoral college over hear. Kudos!

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.

The popular vote is only marginally more representative for most probable "upset" cases. In order for it to be significantly more representative, which is what any major change de facto or de jure to the previous method to be worth the fairly major and time consuming effort of the change, you'd need to revoke the 12th Amendment (so the runner up becomes VP), empower the Vice President with some duties taken from the President and a third to one half of the cabinet appointments, a new method of selecting a Vice President in case something happens to them like some form of selective vote similar to the presidential primaries, and appropriate checks and balances prevent moderate to severe gridlock with the paradigm change in the executive branch of the federal government.

If you're going to use better representation as an argument you have to realize that we elect the two top positions of the executive branch of the federal government and the top officials that get appointed/approved for many positions. Giving the plurality (like the 48% Senator Clinton got) 100% of the executive branch is not representative by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Especially when a slightly smaller minority (they're all minorities this race) didn't vote for them.

[House of Judah]

You already said I as a city dweller should get less or no say compared to you on a farm. That's exactly what you said earlier. Plus because I work for the state government I'm a bureaucrat and that counts double against me.
and because I live in a city I'm less patriotic then you? This is why I left rural America and don't miss it one bit
A poll tax is unconstitutional and you'd have to repeal the 24th amendment.

I strongly suggest you run for office in the next election and make what your saying here a signature part of your platform

I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm. unfortunately the politics of the Anti-EC people in this cycle would perpetuate the nanny state.

I'm all for repealing the 24th and 14th amendments, and tying citizenship (and franchise) to service in a uniformed service (again, not necessarily military, and one that would be available for anyone.) Democracy is a failure.

ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------." That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area.

You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise. And I simply noted that Rural people are more likely to join the military, not more patriotic, they are, statistically, far more likely to join the military.

and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility, that's just an observation that I've noted when comparing my classmates from high school and college who, like me, are from rural areas and went to rural or small-city schools vs heavily urbanized areas and schools.

And people who are physically incapable of such service get no say under that system. The majority of Americans don't meet the physical requirements for such service, and only partially as a result of their own bad choices. You willing to fund a program to help them meet those standards if willing? What about the physically infirm who will never be able to complete that type of service? Partially blind or deaf or bound to a wheel chair from birth would be left out of the process under your system. How is that fair to them? The fact is that not everyone gets the same starting point and even if they did, events outside their control could leave them maimed or otherwise unable to complete that sort of service you're demanding for the right to vote. They could have the greatest of minds in a generation and they won't be able to help us continue to advance as a civilization because their handicap keeps them from voting and participating in the process.

I get that you had bad experiences with city dwellers, but as it turns out there isn't a greater rate of condescending ass holes in Los Angeles than in Lander, Wyoming. There's just more people and therefore more ass holes. And speaking of condescension, how about that line about city school not teaching civics and civic responsibility? I'd ask you for a source but I already know that it's part of the same damn lie that gets used to also say rural Americans are the 'Real America' despite comprising less than 20% of the population.

[Galloism]

I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm. unfortunately the politics of the Anti-EC people in this cycle would perpetuate the nanny state.

I'm all for repealing the 24th and 14th amendments, and tying citizenship (and franchise) to service in a uniformed service (again, not necessarily military, and one that would be available for anyone.) Democracy is a failure.

ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------." That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area.

You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise. And I simply noted that Rural people are more likely to join the military, not more patriotic, they are, statistically, far more likely to join the military.

and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility, that's just an observation that I've noted when comparing my classmates from high school and college who, like me, are from rural areas and went to rural or small-city schools vs heavily urbanized areas and schools.

And people who are physically incapable of such service get no say under that system. The majority of Americans don't meet the physical requirements for such service, and only partially as a result of their own bad choices. You willing to fund a program to help them meet those standards if willing? What about the physically infirm who will never be able to complete that type of service? Partially blind or deaf or bound to a wheel chair from birth would be left out of the process under your system. How is that fair to them? The fact is that not everyone gets the same starting point and even if they did, events outside their control could leave them maimed or otherwise unable to complete that sort of service you're demanding for the right to vote. They could have the greatest of minds in a generation and they won't be able to help us continue to advance as a civilization because their handicap keeps them from voting and participating in the process.

Not to mention those religiously opposed to military service.

I'm sure requiring people to violate their religious beliefs in order to have the right to vote goes against the spirit of the constitution. One of those pesky amendments would seem to apply there. An important one I think.

[Great Nepal]

Not really, it is partially like what EC was originally supposed to be except there's active, independent committee changing the size of areas so there's roughly same amount of people in each area - it'd only be properly analogous if states were re-designated regularly based on their population - which'd mean it roughly reflects the popular vote.

There is for the EC as well. Although the states have fixed boundaries and therefore very different populations, they also have very different numbers of electoral college delegates.

Not to a sufficient degree due to minimum 3 elector rule; for instance in UK ignoring the three islands due to obvious unique issues there, the most overrepresentated constituencies are overrepresented by 43% on the mean while constituencies that are most underrepresented are underrepresented by 29% on average (ie. vote of a person living in most underrepresented constituency, Ilford South is worth 2.27 that of person living in most overrepresented constituency, Arfon).
Whereas in US most overrepresented states are overepresented by 60.5% on the mean while those in most underrepresented states are underrepresented by 38.3% (ie. vote of person living in most underrepresented state, Florida is worth 3.5 that of person living in most overrepresented state, Wyoming).

Of course British system is broken too, but it isn't as broken as the American one and constituency based vote aren't analogous to state based vote because we don't have concept of 'constituency rights' and we don't hold that each constituency is sovereign, immovable entity. With US you've problem of FPTP which is common between US and UK, but issue of immobile electoral areas regardless of evolving population distribution of these areas is issue exclusive to US.

[Great Nepal]

The popular vote is only marginally more representative for most probable "upset" cases. In order for it to be significantly more representative, which is what any major change de facto or de jure to the previous method to be worth the fairly major and time consuming effort of the change, you'd need to revoke the 12th Amendment (so the runner up becomes VP), empower the Vice President with some duties taken from the President and a third to one half of the cabinet appointments, a new method of selecting a Vice President in case something happens to them like some form of selective vote similar to the presidential primaries, and appropriate checks and balances prevent moderate to severe gridlock with the paradigm change in the executive branch of the federal government.

If you're going to use better representation as an argument you have to realize that we elect the two top positions of the executive branch of the federal government and the top officials that get appointed/approved for many positions. Giving the plurality (like the 48% Senator Clinton got) 100% of the executive branch is not representative by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Especially when a slightly smaller minority (they're all minorities this race) didn't vote for them.

A lot more people are pushing for popular vote rather than overhaul of executive because it doesn't require constitutional amendment; so as long as states making up majority in electoral college agree to interstate popular vote compact - arrangement whereby those states assign their electoral votes based on national popular vote, it is done. I think it has 170ish/270 required atm

[HMS Vanguard]

There is for the EC as well. Although the states have fixed boundaries and therefore very different populations, they also have very different numbers of electoral college delegates.

Not to a sufficient degree due to minimum 3 elector rule; for instance in UK ignoring the three islands due to obvious unique issues there, the most overrepresentated constituencies are overrepresented by 43% on the mean while constituencies that are most underrepresented are underrepresented by 29% on average (ie. vote of a person living in most underrepresented constituency, Ilford South is worth 2.27 that of person living in most overrepresented constituency, Arfon).
Whereas in US most overrepresented states are overepresented by 60.5% on the mean while those in most underrepresented states are underrepresented by 38.3% (ie. vote of person living in most underrepresented state, Florida is worth 3.5 that of person living in most overrepresented state, Wyoming).

OK so ignoring the most overrepresented British constituencies because it makes your argument look bad, there's in fact not a whole lot of difference at the extremes anyway. Whatever.

Of course British system is broken too

On what basis? There is no plausible democratic argument against the constituency system considering that 68% of people voted against making it even marginally more proportional.

[House of Judah]

The popular vote is only marginally more representative for most probable "upset" cases. In order for it to be significantly more representative, which is what any major change de facto or de jure to the previous method to be worth the fairly major and time consuming effort of the change, you'd need to revoke the 12th Amendment (so the runner up becomes VP), empower the Vice President with some duties taken from the President and a third to one half of the cabinet appointments, a new method of selecting a Vice President in case something happens to them like some form of selective vote similar to the presidential primaries, and appropriate checks and balances prevent moderate to severe gridlock with the paradigm change in the executive branch of the federal government.

If you're going to use better representation as an argument you have to realize that we elect the two top positions of the executive branch of the federal government and the top officials that get appointed/approved for many positions. Giving the plurality (like the 48% Senator Clinton got) 100% of the executive branch is not representative by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Especially when a slightly smaller minority (they're all minorities this race) didn't vote for them.

A lot more people are pushing for popular vote rather than overhaul of executive because it doesn't require constitutional amendment; so as long as states making up majority in electoral college agree to interstate popular vote compact - arrangement whereby those states assign their electoral votes based on national popular vote, it is done. I think it has 170ish/270 required atm

165, with legislation pending in another three states that would add 49 EVs. There are plenty of other states that had legislation pass one house of their legislature only for it to fail (usually by committee death) in the other.

[Hittanryan]

You already said I as a city dweller should get less or no say compared to you on a farm. That's exactly what you said earlier. Plus because I work for the state government I'm a bureaucrat and that counts double against me.
and because I live in a city I'm less patriotic then you? This is why I left rural America and don't miss it one bit
A poll tax is unconstitutional and you'd have to repeal the 24th amendment.

I strongly suggest you run for office in the next election and make what your saying here a signature part of your platform

I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm. unfortunately the politics of the Anti-EC people in this cycle would perpetuate the nanny state.

I'm all for repealing the 24th and 14th amendments, and tying citizenship (and franchise) to service in a uniformed service (again, not necessarily military, and one that would be available for anyone.) Democracy is a failure.

ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------." That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area.

You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise. And I simply noted that Rural people are more likely to join the military, not more patriotic, they are, statistically, far more likely to join the military.

and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility, that's just an observation that I've noted when comparing my classmates from high school and college who, like me, are from rural areas and went to rural or small-city schools vs heavily urbanized areas and schools.

The ghost of Robert Heinlein is masturbating furiously as he reads this.

[Great Nepal]

Not to a sufficient degree due to minimum 3 elector rule; for instance in UK ignoring the three islands due to obvious unique issues there, the most overrepresentated constituencies are overrepresented by 43% on the mean while constituencies that are most underrepresented are underrepresented by 29% on average (ie. vote of a person living in most underrepresented constituency, Ilford South is worth 2.27 that of person living in most overrepresented constituency, Arfon).
Whereas in US most overrepresented states are overepresented by 60.5% on the mean while those in most underrepresented states are underrepresented by 38.3% (ie. vote of person living in most underrepresented state, Florida is worth 3.5 that of person living in most overrepresented state, Wyoming).

OK so ignoring the most overrepresented British constituencies because it makes your argument look bad, there's in fact not a whole lot of difference at the extremes anyway. Whatever.

Nope ignoring the three extreme constituencies because there's actual valid reason why you'd not want people having to catch one of the four ferries that leaves the islands per day to meet their MPs who are supposed to be representing them; kinda why it'd be silly to lump Hawaii with Alaska and call it a state. No such argument exists for say Wyoming which shares contagious land area with other states nearby.

Of course British system is broken too

On what basis? There is no plausible democratic argument against the constituency system considering that 68% of people voted against making it even marginally more proportional.

Vote of someone in Ilford South being worth 2.27 less than someone living in Arfon counts as being broken; so does fact that party with ~30% of vote has absolute control over parliament.

165, with legislation pending in another three states that would add 49 EVs. There are plenty of other states that had legislation pass one house of their legislature only for it to fail (usually by committee death) in the other.

Yup it is a challenge, and likely won't happen until we have reverse 2000, and democrat's candidate wins despite loosing popular vote.

[Free Missouri]

I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm. unfortunately the politics of the Anti-EC people in this cycle would perpetuate the nanny state.

I'm all for repealing the 24th and 14th amendments, and tying citizenship (and franchise) to service in a uniformed service (again, not necessarily military, and one that would be available for anyone.) Democracy is a failure.

ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------." That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area.

You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise. And I simply noted that Rural people are more likely to join the military, not more patriotic, they are, statistically, far more likely to join the military.

and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility, that's just an observation that I've noted when comparing my classmates from high school and college who, like me, are from rural areas and went to rural or small-city schools vs heavily urbanized areas and schools.

And people who are physically incapable of such service get no say under that system. The majority of Americans don't meet the physical requirements for such service, and only partially as a result of their own bad choices. You willing to fund a program to help them meet those standards if willing? What about the physically infirm who will never be able to complete that type of service? Partially blind or deaf or bound to a wheel chair from birth would be left out of the process under your system. How is that fair to them? The fact is that not everyone gets the same starting point and even if they did, events outside their control could leave them maimed or otherwise unable to complete that sort of service you're demanding for the right to vote. They could have the greatest of minds in a generation and they won't be able to help us continue to advance as a civilization because their handicap keeps them from voting and participating in the process.

I get that you had bad experiences with city dwellers, but as it turns out there isn't a greater rate of condescending ass holes in Los Angeles than in Lander, Wyoming. There's just more people and therefore more ass holes. And speaking of condescension, how about that line about city school not teaching civics and civic responsibility? I'd ask you for a source but I already know that it's part of the same damn lie that gets used to also say rural Americans are the 'Real America' despite comprising less than 20% of the population.

While It's not a copy of his system, that's easily counter with this line from Heinlein

"If someone blind and in a wheelchair is silly enough to demand to enter the service, we will find them an equally silly service to carry out, even if just counting out the hairs on a caterpillar by touch."

And Rural Americans are simply more likely
to have an emphasis taught to them on civic responsibility because of the STEM-fever that has taken many urban schools by storm to do better on the common core and NCLB bullshit.

[HMS Vanguard]

OK so ignoring the most overrepresented British constituencies

Nope ignoring the three extreme constituencies

Repeat your working with three most extreme US states excluded and compare.

because there's actual valid reason why you'd not want people having to catch one of the four ferries that leaves the islands per day to meet their MPs who are supposed to be representing them; kinda why it'd be silly to lump Hawaii with Alaska and call it a state. No such argument exists for say Wyoming which shares contagious land area with other states nearby.

Administratively grouping islands together or grouping islands with mainland (Gibraltar is grouped with South West England for EU parliament elections) is far more plausible than abolishing Wyoming. Even the civil war didn't result in outright abolition of states, while British constituencies and local government areas have no constitutional status and are changed or abolished all the time.

Vote of someone in Ilford South being worth 2.27 less than someone living in Arfon counts as being broken; so does fact that party with ~30% of vote has absolute control over parliament.

Broken in that it doesn't reflect the peoples' will? But the system itself is the peoples' will. A greater proportion of the voters voted for this system than have ever voted for any party.

[Free Missouri]

I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm. unfortunately the politics of the Anti-EC people in this cycle would perpetuate the nanny state.

I'm all for repealing the 24th and 14th amendments, and tying citizenship (and franchise) to service in a uniformed service (again, not necessarily military, and one that would be available for anyone.) Democracy is a failure.

ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------." That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area.

You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise. And I simply noted that Rural people are more likely to join the military, not more patriotic, they are, statistically, far more likely to join the military.

and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility, that's just an observation that I've noted when comparing my classmates from high school and college who, like me, are from rural areas and went to rural or small-city schools vs heavily urbanized areas and schools.

"I've said that you as an urban dweller should have no say on what I do on the farm."
Under our current system, it's uneducated farmers telling college-educated SJW's living in cities what to do so I wouldn't really complain if you're an American who lives in a rural area.

"Democracy is a failure."
Please give a government system/ideology that has achieved more progress in human development and wealth than democracy.

"ANd I've spent some time in urban areas, they disgust me, and people automatically think they are better/smarter than me because "oh you grew up on a farm, probably haven't ever seen ---------."
And us city people are disgusted when some redneck drives in with his lifted muddied up pickup truck, parks in 3 spaces and walks around and talk like some sort of un-mannered and uneducated hillbilly trash. You get what you do.

"That's why I'm disgusted by any system in which urban bureaucrats in far away cities are empowered by urban voters to press on with programs that hurt my area."
Guess what? Cities are the future, it doesn't take much of an education to know that more people equal less space. Why the hell should we develop policies that support the minority? Social Darwinism baby.

"You're less patriotic because you apparently wouldn't be willing to take a two year term of service in order to earn your franchise."
How is disenfranchising the majority of the American population anymore more patriotic? Hell if anything, you're less patriotic since you represent the smaller portion of America. Also the fact you don't support our democracy puts you directly as an enemy of the state since our nation was founded on those principles.

"statistically, far more likely to join the military."
Cities house more people so in total numbers there will always be more soldiers from cities than rural areas. Also we have a military draft so it really doesn't matter.

"and rural schools tend to put more emphasis on civics and civil responsibility,"
Never heard of such things. I went to Elementary and Middle School and currently in HS, all in a rural area and I ain't seeing any of this so called education you talk about.

more soldiers from cities, not a higher percentage, a far higher rate of attrition from cities and a far higher rate of enlistment from rural areas (and pacific islands).

My system would eliminate the draft. No reason for it.

And if you don't like the southern accent or someone's lifted pick up truck (or some person from the hoods idiotic drop-kitted car for that fucking matter), then fucking deal with it. It's called freedom. something which some of us hold higher and more important than your precious democracy which has fucked us over in every election since coolidge.

Why should we set policies to support the minority? Fine, even as a black person I'll say this: Get rid of bullshit like affirmative action and special black clubs and womens clubs and the special snowflakes in gender studies if you don't care about the minority.

And Democracy has failed, if anything the american experiment has shown the with the urbanization of people comes the higher likelihood that a democratic society will vote away their freedoms carelessly. Patriotism is love of your country always, not love of your government or it's systems. Obviously the constitution left too much leeway for the creeping tyranny of democratic society, and we need new solutions to save the experiment of freedom.