(November 10, 2016 at 12:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 12:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Two per state. 

Wyoming pop = 584,000 = 2 senators

California pop = 39 million = 2 senators

It's fucking asinine.

I disagree. I think Senate/House is a pretty nifty compromise to offer equal representation.

We can disagree.  The Founders had no particular ability at foresight.

(November 10, 2016 at 6:28 am)chimp3 Wrote: I think it is high time we change the system and end the electoral college. Popular vote any one?

Popular vote, get rid of the senate (it's the most anti-democratic) and run off congress based on some form of state wide PR system with all seats up the same day as the presidential election.

Oh and make election day a national holiday that all workers, except those in protected jobs (like doctors, nurses, soldiers, cops, firefighters &c who get to vote by other means), have the day off for. Make the decision regarding districting strictly a civil service decision (as somebody else I know on another forum says you could very easily design an algorithm to do it fairly) and make all polling stations exactly equal, same equipment same number of booths, and within reason the same number of voters per station (obviously that's not going to be exact, low density rural areas will always have more stations per person than high density cities).

My last bit is because republican state governments have an awful habit of making it much, much harder (especially now that the Civil Rights Act has been gutted, and the Supreme Court no longer demands they show the court their electoral policies before hand) for black, latino, jew, asian and other minority voters to be able to cast their votes.

(November 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: If Trump had won popular vote but lost EC, would there be any wailing, sack cloth and ashes, gnashing of teeth ?

In the very slim event of Trump winning the national election but losing the EC election, yes, I would have said it was stupid. I wouldn't be as angry about it as I am about reality, because the very worst you can say about Hilary is that she's business as usual. The very best you can say about the dead squirrel nazi is that he is a clear and present danger to all of humanity.

(November 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The USA is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic of sovereign states i.e. the United States of America.

OK, those are all words. Now maybe form them into some kind of argument?

I think the purpose of the system we have was to give states with lower populations power somewhat out of proportion to their size as an incentive to join and stay in the union. Maybe that justification is obsolete, but it will be extremely difficult to change.

Any state can choose to go to proportionate apportionment of electoral votes though. I think swing states have some incentive to do so, since they currently leave half their populations very frustrated after every election.

(November 10, 2016 at 12:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Any state can choose to go to proportionate apportionment of electoral votes though. I think swing states have some incentive to do so, since they currently leave half their populations very frustrated after every election.

That's still vastly different to other federal nations. We draw a distinct line between federal and state elections. When it's a federal election the overall vote is counted, regardless of the state it came from.

I don't disagree. Just pointing out a route that's much easier than changing how voting works at the federal level.

(November 10, 2016 at 1:14 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't disagree. Just pointing out a route that's much easier than changing how voting works at the federal level.

Exactly, getting rid of the electoral college would take a constitutional amendment and ratification by 3/4 of the states. I don't see 3/4 of the states agreeing to it.

(November 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The USA is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic of sovereign states i.e. the United States of America.

OK, those are all words. Now maybe form them into some kind of argument?

The president does not just represent the interest of the popular will. He or she also must represent the needs of diverse regions across the nation. A strong republic needs to respect that regional diversity. Without the Electoral College, a candidate would appeal only to the narrow self-interests of densely populated urban areas. There would be no reason for a president to consider the well-being or interests of people and industries prominent in rural areas – those responsible for providing the agricultural, energy needs of our country – ranchers, fisherman, farmers, oilmen, coal miners, and also military personnel.

Aside from it being impossible to change the EC from a political standpoint,what would be wrong with just going by popular vote? I get that means the people of California and Texas will get more votes, but since Texas has democrats and California has republicans and they both have independents, that just means every individual has their own voice, in that case. That doesn't seem fairer?

Someone explain to me, please, why that would be less fair than the EC, which has fucked us now twice in my lifetime.