seems to me the corn states have far too much of a voice, but that has to do with iowa's caucus being so early
not to mention that farming is done by huge conglomerates nowadays and it's hard to imagine fortune 500 companies not being heard.
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Our founding fathers were smarter than every single person on this board. They understood that a REPUBLIC was the correct approach because it gives every state a voice.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The problem with moving to a popular vote, which the founders foresaw when they created the electoral college, is that a purely popular vote will allow the relatively few urban areas to entirely override the concerns of rural people.
The top 10 metropolitan areas in the US have 25% of the total population. New York and LA together account for over 10% of the total US population. If the presidency were determined by only the popular vote, candidates would completely ignore large swaths of the US. The electoral college mitigates this somewhat by breaking up the voting block of large cities, separating them by state. This ensures that at least some attention is given to rural concerns.
The electoral college isn't perfect, but it does serve a necessary function.
ZV
Originally posted by: Codewiz
You people do understand we don't live in a pure democracy right? They do still teach our children that we are a Republic right?
People are saying that popular vote wouldn't be any different than the how we have it now with swing states. Yeah, it is completely different. Swing states can change over time. Population hardly EVER changes. So this election we have certain states that are considered swing states. Florida used to not be a swing state but over the past 20 years has become one.
When was the last time that NY, CA, TX weren't the most populous states? Yeah, see the big picture. Those few states would rule the elections. They would control the future of the country. Our founding fathers were smarter than every single person on this board. They understood that a REPUBLIC was the correct approach because it gives every state a voice.
If you go with popular vote, then once the big states poll a certain way, there is absolutely no reason for any other person in the entire country to vote.
Originally posted by: Kev
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: Kev
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Kev
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.
in a popular system, every vote will count.
If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?
we're not in a popular vote system, so no.
Even if we were in a popular vote system. Show me an example of one election that was decided by a margin of one vote.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/...0061129/NEWS/111290059
Just the first example, there are many more.
"With 735 votes cast"
LOL
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The problem with moving to a popular vote, which the founders foresaw when they created the electoral college, is that a purely popular vote will allow the relatively few urban areas to entirely override the concerns of rural people.
The top 10 metropolitan areas in the US have 25% of the total population. New York and LA together account for over 10% of the total US population. If the presidency were determined by only the popular vote, candidates would completely ignore large swaths of the US. The electoral college mitigates this somewhat by breaking up the voting block of large cities, separating them by state. This ensures that at least some attention is given to rural concerns.
The electoral college isn't perfect, but it does serve a necessary function.
ZV
Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Codewiz
You people do understand we don't live in a pure democracy right? They do still teach our children that we are a Republic right?
People are saying that popular vote wouldn't be any different than the how we have it now with swing states. Yeah, it is completely different. Swing states can change over time. Population hardly EVER changes. So this election we have certain states that are considered swing states. Florida used to not be a swing state but over the past 20 years has become one.
When was the last time that NY, CA, TX weren't the most populous states? Yeah, see the big picture. Those few states would rule the elections. They would control the future of the country. Our founding fathers were smarter than every single person on this board. They understood that a REPUBLIC was the correct approach because it gives every state a voice.
If you go with popular vote, then once the big states poll a certain way, there is absolutely no reason for any other person in the entire country to vote.
in a popular system, it doesn't matter what state "rules the elections".
there will be no more concept of trying to win a state during an election. the power to elect goes to each individual.
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?
I am a big voting supporter and I will be voting this November. However, I respect my freedom to choose to vote just as much as I respect other people's freedom to choose not to vote. You cannot have one with out the other.
You either support giving people the choice to vote, support forcing everyone by law to vote, or support forcing everyone to not be permitted to vote. Last I checked, this country is about freedom so let's try to preserve it as much as we can without inflicting harm upon others in the process shall we?
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?
That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.
Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?
I think enough of the duty to our country is paid off in the crapload of taxes we pay, and the 4 years of service some people (like myself) have given.
Voting is not a duty, and you sir, are a tool.
Perhaps you need to reevaluate your concept of citizenship. The duties, as are the privileges of American citizenship, are constant. Your previous service didn't buy you a lifelong 'free' ticket.
You're an idiot for thinking voting is a duty. It's a right, NOT a duty. Perhaps you should reevaluate your concept of logical thinking.
It is the duty of every American citizen to give voice to how they believe the government of the United States should be formed and function. The sacrifices of countless American's to ensure the right of citizens to vote does not mean they can expect the "rights" they enjoy to continue unchanged without their input.
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: Codewiz
You people do understand we don't live in a pure democracy right? They do still teach our children that we are a Republic right?
People are saying that popular vote wouldn't be any different than the how we have it now with swing states. Yeah, it is completely different. Swing states can change over time. Population hardly EVER changes. So this election we have certain states that are considered swing states. Florida used to not be a swing state but over the past 20 years has become one.
When was the last time that NY, CA, TX weren't the most populous states? Yeah, see the big picture. Those few states would rule the elections. They would control the future of the country. Our founding fathers were smarter than every single person on this board. They understood that a REPUBLIC was the correct approach because it gives every state a voice.
If you go with popular vote, then once the big states poll a certain way, there is absolutely no reason for any other person in the entire country to vote.
in a popular system, it doesn't matter what state "rules the elections".
there will be no more concept of trying to win a state during an election. the power to elect goes to each individual.
Seriously? You aren't this dense.
Every single election will revolve around CA, NY, and TX. They will not care about any state for the rest of the existence of the USA. No other state would matter. No other individuals in any other states will matter.
They will campaign in NY, TX, and CA exclusively. Because that is where the battle will be won. It will become exclusively about certain states. There will never be any shifts in the states that matter. The population in this states never change enough to make a difference.
It means I will have ZERO reason to vote.
Now I will say, I can see reason to take the electoral college down to the county levels and split a states EC based on that. I agree that a state's winner take all approach can be improved.
But pure democracy has NEVER worked. It is mob rules and you guarantee a large percentage of the country get screwed year after year after year.
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?
That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.
Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?
I think enough of the duty to our country is paid off in the crapload of taxes we pay, and the 4 years of service some people (like myself) have given.
Voting is not a duty, and you sir, are a tool.
Perhaps you need to reevaluate your concept of citizenship. The duties, as are the privileges of American citizenship, are constant. Your previous service didn't buy you a lifelong 'free' ticket.
You're an idiot for thinking voting is a duty. It's a right, NOT a duty. Perhaps you should reevaluate your concept of logical thinking.
It is the duty of every American citizen to give voice to how they believe the government of the United States should be formed and function. The sacrifices of countless American's to ensure the right of citizens to vote does not mean they can expect the "rights" they enjoy to continue unchanged without their input.
You're opinion on the matter has been voted down., but hey, better luck next time, and thank you for playing!
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The problem with moving to a popular vote, which the founders foresaw when they created the electoral college, is that a purely popular vote will allow the relatively few urban areas to entirely override the concerns of rural people.
The top 10 metropolitan areas in the US have 25% of the total population. New York and LA together account for over 10% of the total US population. If the presidency were determined by only the popular vote, candidates would completely ignore large swaths of the US. The electoral college mitigates this somewhat by breaking up the voting block of large cities, separating them by state. This ensures that at least some attention is given to rural concerns.
The electoral college isn't perfect, but it does serve a necessary function.
ZV
Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.
so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?
That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.
Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?
I think enough of the duty to our country is paid off in the crapload of taxes we pay, and the 4 years of service some people (like myself) have given.
Voting is not a duty, and you sir, are a tool.
Perhaps you need to reevaluate your concept of citizenship. The duties, as are the privileges of American citizenship, are constant. Your previous service didn't buy you a lifelong 'free' ticket.
You're an idiot for thinking voting is a duty. It's a right, NOT a duty. Perhaps you should reevaluate your concept of logical thinking.
It is the duty of every American citizen to give voice to how they believe the government of the United States should be formed and function. The sacrifices of countless American's to ensure the right of citizens to vote does not mean they can expect the "rights" they enjoy to continue unchanged without their input.
You're opinion on the matter has been voted down., but hey, better luck next time, and thank you for playing!
I would say that comprehensive pole of yours reflects more on the general lack of participation in real life by many ATOT members than a consensus on the matter. I say again, voting is both a right and a duty.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The problem with moving to a popular vote, which the founders foresaw when they created the electoral college, is that a purely popular vote will allow the relatively few urban areas to entirely override the concerns of rural people.
The top 10 metropolitan areas in the US have 25% of the total population. New York and LA together account for over 10% of the total US population. If the presidency were determined by only the popular vote, candidates would completely ignore large swaths of the US. The electoral college mitigates this somewhat by breaking up the voting block of large cities, separating them by state. This ensures that at least some attention is given to rural concerns.
The electoral college isn't perfect, but it does serve a necessary function.
ZV
Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.
so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?
Why would they promise it to everyone? They'd only need to promise it to people in urban centers since the rural areas would be completely irrelevant to the political race.
ZV
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The problem with moving to a popular vote, which the founders foresaw when they created the electoral college, is that a purely popular vote will allow the relatively few urban areas to entirely override the concerns of rural people.
The top 10 metropolitan areas in the US have 25% of the total population. New York and LA together account for over 10% of the total US population. If the presidency were determined by only the popular vote, candidates would completely ignore large swaths of the US. The electoral college mitigates this somewhat by breaking up the voting block of large cities, separating them by state. This ensures that at least some attention is given to rural concerns.
The electoral college isn't perfect, but it does serve a necessary function.
ZV
Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.
so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?
Why would they promise it to everyone? They'd only need to promise it to people in urban centers since the rural areas would be completely irrelevant to the political race.
ZV
Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The problem with moving to a popular vote, which the founders foresaw when they created the electoral college, is that a purely popular vote will allow the relatively few urban areas to entirely override the concerns of rural people.
The top 10 metropolitan areas in the US have 25% of the total population. New York and LA together account for over 10% of the total US population. If the presidency were determined by only the popular vote, candidates would completely ignore large swaths of the US. The electoral college mitigates this somewhat by breaking up the voting block of large cities, separating them by state. This ensures that at least some attention is given to rural concerns.
The electoral college isn't perfect, but it does serve a necessary function.
ZV
Originally posted by: videogames101
Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......
they already do, more electoral votes