4 ms·

>The majority of the country elects the President Majority in what way? Not necessarily a majority of the people. > Frankly, I wouldn't mind every state havin

by s73ver 10y ago

>The majority of the country elects the President Majority in what way? Not necessarily a majority of the people. > Frankly, I wouldn't mind every state having an equal voice, rather than unfairly privileging populous states. More people live there, though. So those states represent the views of more people. Under your system, someone in South Dakota would have a 1/750,000th of a say in their state's choice, while someone in California would have a 1/36Mth of a say in their state's choice.

wtbob 10y ago
> Majority in what way? Not necessarily a majority of the people. The people are irrelevant, because the United States is composed of the States, not of the people. The majority of the states, through their electors, elect the President. > So those states represent the views of more people. Under your system, someone in South Dakota would have a 1/750,000th of a say in their state's choice, while someone in California would have a 1/36Mth of a say in their state's choice. Why care about the number of people represented? California is free to petition the Congress to split into smaller, South-Dakota-sized states if it so wishes. More to the point, California and South Dakota are individual sovereign states which are each part of the United States. They are constitutional equals. It would be unfair to give California forty-eight times the voice of South Dakota. Frankly, I think our Constitution has a good balance: the People are represented in the House; the States in the Senate (which is why direct election of Senators is a catastrophically disastrous mistake); and states determine how to choose their electors. I'm in favour of constitutional amendments revoking the 17th Amendment and mandating that state legislatures appoint senators & electors.

4 ms·

>The majority of the country elects the President Majority in what way? Not necessarily a majority of the people. > Frankly, I wouldn't mind every state havin

by s73ver 10y ago

wtbob 10y ago
> Majority in what way? Not necessarily a majority of the people. The people are irrelevant, because the United States is composed of the States, not of the people. The majority of the states, through their electors, elect the President. > So those states represent the views of more people. Under your system, someone in South Dakota would have a 1/750,000th of a say in their state's choice, while someone in California would have a 1/36Mth of a say in their state's choice. Why care about the number of people represented? California is free to petition the Congress to split into smaller, South-Dakota-sized states if it so wishes. More to the point, California and South Dakota are individual sovereign states which are each part of the United States. They are constitutional equals. It would be unfair to give California forty-eight times the voice of South Dakota. Frankly, I think our Constitution has a good balance: the People are represented in the House; the States in the Senate (which is why direct election of Senators is a catastrophically disastrous mistake); and states determine how to choose their electors. I'm in favour of constitutional amendments revoking the 17th Amendment and mandating that state legislatures appoint senators & electors.