by San Lumen » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:06 am
by Holy Tedalonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:11 am
by Saturna1ia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:20 am
by San Lumen » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:24 am
Saturna1ia wrote:I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:26 am
San Lumen wrote:This is an idea I have seen proposed both here and elsewhere and was even suggested by a friend of mine. In every statewide election if one gets the most votes they are elected but some have proposed that should be changed.
It is often suggested its not fair for the most populous counties to decide statewide officials like Governor, Attorney General(not all states elect these) or Senator and instead there should be a system in place to win statewide office you have to win a majority of counties and that this somehow fairer and everyone has a voice.
There are fundamental problems with this. Your not giving everyone a voice. Your making rural votes count more than urban votes and in effect rigging the election so only one side can win.
To show just how unfair this system would be lets use the best possible example Nevada. The state has 16 counties and one independent city Carson City which is the capital. 90 percent of the population of the state is in just two counties Clark and Washoe. To win a statewide election carry them both and you win. The other 14 counties are very red and unlikely to not vote for a Republican by wide margins. Carson City is lean republican.
How would it be fair for 10 percent of the population to decide every statewide office at the expense of everyone else? You've created a de facto dictatorship.
An election should be decided by how many votes one receives and nothing else. In theory we could apply this to congressional districts as well which would be even more unfair. Plus I would assume this idea could be applied to other countries as well and not just the US.
What are your thoughts NSG?
by San Lumen » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:26 am
Balticonia wrote:San Lumen wrote:This is an idea I have seen proposed both here and elsewhere and was even suggested by a friend of mine. In every statewide election if one gets the most votes they are elected but some have proposed that should be changed.
It is often suggested its not fair for the most populous counties to decide statewide officials like Governor, Attorney General(not all states elect these) or Senator and instead there should be a system in place to win statewide office you have to win a majority of counties and that this somehow fairer and everyone has a voice.
There are fundamental problems with this. Your not giving everyone a voice. Your making rural votes count more than urban votes and in effect rigging the election so only one side can win.
To show just how unfair this system would be lets use the best possible example Nevada. The state has 16 counties and one independent city Carson City which is the capital. 90 percent of the population of the state is in just two counties Clark and Washoe. To win a statewide election carry them both and you win. The other 14 counties are very red and unlikely to not vote for a Republican by wide margins. Carson City is lean republican.
How would it be fair for 10 percent of the population to decide every statewide office at the expense of everyone else? You've created a de facto dictatorship.
An election should be decided by how many votes one receives and nothing else. In theory we could apply this to congressional districts as well which would be even more unfair. Plus I would assume this idea could be applied to other countries as well and not just the US.
What are your thoughts NSG?
I'm not sure you understand electoral colleges
by Luziyca » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:30 am
by Satuga » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:30 am
Saturna1ia wrote:I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.
by San Lumen » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:33 am
Satuga wrote:Saturna1ia wrote:I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.
Personally, I think a state electoral college doesn't work too well because at the state level there isn't going to be much difference in ideology or business/industry so a electoral college would just over complicate things. However when it goes to country wide it becomes much more important as many states become varied and different in ideology and industry. A mining state isn't going to have the same interests as a tourist state and so on and so forth. People who want to get rid of the presidential electoral college just want complete control over other states. Especially since a lot of people will simply vote for their party because it's their party rather than look at qualifications. Imagine California's population and thik of how many people in that state religiously vote their party, it would be way too controlling.
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:38 am
San Lumen wrote:Saturna1ia wrote:I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.
Some people on here have called for it and in Wisconsin after Scott Walker lost some in the state legislature called for it.
There is in fact one US state that has an electoral college, Mississippi. To be elected governor one must get 50 percent of the vote and a majority of state house districts. Its currently being challenged in court a a violation of one man one vote.
I support changing to direct popular vote for the president as well.
by Holy Tedalonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:39 am
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:40 am
San Lumen wrote:Satuga wrote:
Personally, I think a state electoral college doesn't work too well because at the state level there isn't going to be much difference in ideology or business/industry so a electoral college would just over complicate things. However when it goes to country wide it becomes much more important as many states become varied and different in ideology and industry. A mining state isn't going to have the same interests as a tourist state and so on and so forth. People who want to get rid of the presidential electoral college just want complete control over other states. Especially since a lot of people will simply vote for their party because it's their party rather than look at qualifications. Imagine California's population and thik of how many people in that state religiously vote their party, it would be way too controlling.
How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?
The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.
by San Lumen » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:42 am
Balticonia wrote:San Lumen wrote:How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?
The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.
No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:43 am
Balticonia wrote:San Lumen wrote:How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?
The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.
No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:45 am
San Lumen wrote:Balticonia wrote:No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.
It isnt a valid reason. its outdated and unfair. If your going use that argument why not bring it to the state level? It sound like you think it would be fairer.
by San Lumen » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:46 am
Balticonia wrote:San Lumen wrote:It isnt a valid reason. its outdated and unfair. If your going use that argument why not bring it to the state level? It sound like you think it would be fairer.
I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:46 am
San Lumen wrote:Balticonia wrote:No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.
It isnt a valid reason. its outdated and unfair. If your going use that argument why not bring it to the state level? It sound like you think it would be fairer.
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:47 am
San Lumen wrote:Balticonia wrote:I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information
Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:48 am
San Lumen wrote:Balticonia wrote:I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information
Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected
by San Lumen » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:50 am
Balticonia wrote:San Lumen wrote:Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected
Isn't that the same thing.....If you give each county one vote, then whoever wins the most counties wins....
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:51 am
San Lumen wrote:Balticonia wrote:I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information
Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected
by Balticonia » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:52 am
by Satuga » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:56 am
San Lumen wrote:How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?
The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hidrandia, Infected Mushroom, Likhinia, The Kharkivan Cossacks, Tungstan
Advertisement