For US residents only!

[account_inactive]

If it's USians only, why am I able to sign it as well?

'USian' is a term I have trademarked and copyrighted.  Use it again, and you'll be hearing from my solicitors.

Boru

USian.

#rebel

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'USian' is a term I have trademarked and copyrighted.  Use it again, and you'll be hearing from my solicitors.

Boru

USian.

#rebel

Said I was going to sue EP, not you. You I like.

Boru

[Aegon]

Problem:

democrat party runs a terrible candidate and democrats stay home in droves (10,000,000 fewer than successful election 8 years earlier) on election night and grease the way for the republican candidate to win with fewer votes than unsuccessful republican candidate 4 years earlier received


Solution:

change the constitution

If this was the only incidence of inequity in how each voted is given a certain value, I wouldn't complain. The idea is not to give too much power to any given section of the country, and it is crucial we uphold that. 

But here's the thing, each state gets two Senators, which means that in the Senate, Wyoming, with a population of under 600,000, has as much power as California, a state with almost 39,000,000 and by itself is the sixth largest economy on the planet. They have one Senator for roughly 300,000 people. California has one Senator per almost 19,000,000. 

Also, while Wyoming has just one representative in the House (1 per 580,000), and California has 53, which gives it one representative for about every 735,000 people. 

Again though, it is important that the majority not develop into a tyranny, so I don't really have a problem with that. 

However, in the one national election we have to select the one office that everyone has the right to vote for, it should be a purely popular vote. Each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to about 178,000 people per. Each of California's electoral vote corresponds to about 709,000 people per. That is fucking ridiculous. In terms of electoral power, it gives Wyoming a relative 3.9 to 1 advantage. Or maybe more accurately, it robs California of around 160 electoral votes (214 minus 55).

When my vote counts for 1/4 of what someone else's does in any other state, that's a load of horse shit. The only equitable solution is that the Presidency should be decided on a straight up popular vote. 

And this doesn't guarantee a Democrat win every time, because instead of being able to essentially ignore the most powerful state in the Union, candidates would actually have to campaign their asses off here too, and therefore Republicans could raise their vote total in California and in New York instead of just ceding those states to the Democrats. And Democrats would have to get to work in Texas and the midwest. 

The idea that they would have to campaign for every voter in the nation sounds pretty damn fair to me.

In this year’s election, Hillary Clinton won about 62% of California’s popular vote, which was a little less than 7 million. The total number of people that voted (Republican, Democrat, or other) in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi this past election adds up to 7 million. Do you think it’s fair that 60% of California has the same say as 100% of NINE other states? The Electoral College obviously has issues but popular vote gives a ridiculous amount of power to some states and virtually none in others.

Everyone's arguing that states don't matter when 1 person = 1 person. But there are certain interests that vary by region. You're basically telling the midwest they don't matter because they live in an ill-populated state.

[Alex K]

Aegon, that sounds a bit bogus. Couldn't you just as well say - see, non movie going stamp collectors don't have any power in the election compared to movie goers, just because there are so few of them. What about their issues? Shouldn't they count 10x to make it fair?

[Opoponax]

If this was the only incidence of inequity in how each voted is given a certain value, I wouldn't complain. The idea is not to give too much power to any given section of the country, and it is crucial we uphold that. 

But here's the thing, each state gets two Senators, which means that in the Senate, Wyoming, with a population of under 600,000, has as much power as California, a state with almost 39,000,000 and by itself is the sixth largest economy on the planet. They have one Senator for roughly 300,000 people. California has one Senator per almost 19,000,000. 

Also, while Wyoming has just one representative in the House (1 per 580,000), and California has 53, which gives it one representative for about every 735,000 people. 

Again though, it is important that the majority not develop into a tyranny, so I don't really have a problem with that. 

However, in the one national election we have to select the one office that everyone has the right to vote for, it should be a purely popular vote. Each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to about 178,000 people per. Each of California's electoral vote corresponds to about 709,000 people per. That is fucking ridiculous. In terms of electoral power, it gives Wyoming a relative 3.9 to 1 advantage. Or maybe more accurately, it robs California of around 160 electoral votes (214 minus 55).

When my vote counts for 1/4 of what someone else's does in any other state, that's a load of horse shit. The only equitable solution is that the Presidency should be decided on a straight up popular vote. 

And this doesn't guarantee a Democrat win every time, because instead of being able to essentially ignore the most powerful state in the Union, candidates would actually have to campaign their asses off here too, and therefore Republicans could raise their vote total in California and in New York instead of just ceding those states to the Democrats. And Democrats would have to get to work in Texas and the midwest. 

The idea that they would have to campaign for every voter in the nation sounds pretty damn fair to me.

In this year’s election, Hillary Clinton won about 62% of California’s popular vote, which was a little less than 7 million. The total number of people that voted (Republican, Democrat, or other) in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi this past election adds up to 7 million. Do you think it’s fair that 60% of California has the same say as 100% of NINE other states? The Electoral College obviously has issues but popular vote gives a ridiculous amount of power to some states and virtually none in others.

Everyone's arguing that states don't matter when 1 person = 1 person. But there are certain interests that vary by region. You're basically telling the midwest they don't matter because they live in an ill-populated state.

Like I said, there are built-in and necessary inequities of the Senate and House that prevent the populous states from ruling over the smaller ones, and therefore their interests are more than fairly represented in the federal government. Again, Wyoming has one Senator per roughly 300,000 people; California, one Senator per 19,000,000. 

I don't know where you're from, but here in California, the most the POTUS candidates do is run TV ads here and there and hold fundraisers for people who can afford tens of thousands of dollars for a plate of chicken and vegetables. Other than that, they don't campaign here because the electoral college makes us not one of the swing states. If it were a popular vote, then Republican candidates would have the opportunity to get out here and garner more votes, which in turn would help the predominantly red states. 

It isn't like Trump lost the popular vote by 15 million. Had it been worth his time to campaign hard on the west coast, it's not unreasonable to think that he could have campaigned his way to several million more votes than he actually received. I fail to see how that is inherently unfair.

[Elskidor]

I signed the one that's already at 5 million signatures. I'd just add to that one vs starting more and more of the same petitions dividing signatures everywhere.

[Rev. Rye]

I signed it. Granted, the Republicans have regained control of the Presidency, Senate, and House and will refuse to accept any change that isn't for the worse, and it won't likely do anything. In Republican America, as in the days of Thucydides, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. It's not like they give a shit about the will of the people, except when it coincides with their own agenda. But, hey, at least it's something.

[Jehanne]

If it's USians only, why am I able to sign it as well?

You can, of course!  However, some critics will no doubt criticize the petition for the fact that non-voting US individuals, whether in the US or not, signed it.  Still, it's doing quite well compared to other petitions.  In fact, I think that this one might be the #1 in terms of signatures.

[Jehanne]

Bleah.  I think the electoral college is a good enough compromise with states' rights.

That's not why the Founders of the US Constitution instituted it, though; they did so out of a distrust of popular democracy.  The EC was supposed to be a stop-gap, a release valve, if the US electorate got out of control and popularly elected a dimwit to the Presidency.  This is why Senators were elected by state legislatures and not by the popular vote for over 100 years after the founding of the Republic.

[Jehanne]

Bleah.  I think the electoral college is a good enough compromise with states' rights.

States have their own legislatures, they have constitutiknal guarantees and if push came to shove they have plenty of recourse to the supreme court. The electoral college, the 2 senators per state and the endorsememt of gerrymandering have one simple purpose, the maintenance of the patrician oligarchy.

And, they have their own court systems, as well.  The US Supreme Court rarely overrules a State Supreme Court on a matter of state law, and even if they did, the State could just ignore them.