4 ms·

It could also be that candidates are getting better and better at playing the system. Why aim for the popular vote when it's the electoral vote that counts? If

It could also be that candidates are getting better and better at playing the system. Why aim for the popular vote when it's the electoral vote that counts? If the popular vote would count the candidates would change their campaign strategies.

jakeogh 7y ago
Ya, visit 5 states because the rest wouldn't matter. Right back to the real Tea Party.
- pimmen 7y ago
  One could reply with "Yeah, visit less than half the population because the rest wouldn't matter. Right back to the real Tea Party."
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Fortunately the United States is not run on a tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College insures minority representation of the states. Unless I have misunderstood you, by that logic a majority of the US could move to TX and rule the rest.
    - pimmen 7y ago
      As your last paragraph shows, the Electoral College does not ensure minority representation of the states (or ”tyranny of the majority of states”) because if enough people moved to Texas it would decide everything. As is right now, about 22% of the population controls half the EC votes. And the senate already ensure representation of all states, so pwople in smaller states have many times more power than fellow citizens in larger states in all parts of the government except the House.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        I'm referring to the executive branch. Less populated state representation in one branch does not negate the need for it in the others. The founders (wisely imo) left national proportional representation to a single entity, the purse-string holders in the House. Removing the electoral college removes the incentive for a presidential candidate to campaign to most of the states.
        pimmen 7y ago
        I've never understood this argument at all. What's so special about the states that there needs to be power rebalancing in order to prevent larger states from getting more influence? What's so special about Washington DC that it needs more EC votes per capita than New York or California? Why does rural voters in Wyoming need more voting power per capita than rural people in Texas? Because, everytime I hear the arguments about culture and values I don't see how those arguments don't extend to minorities, it would be more modern to set up the Electoral College to accurately represent the diversity of cultures in the US based on actual demographic blocks. Shouldn't Muslim American voters get more EC votes per capita than Christian American voters? The same argument could then also be made for African American voters, shouldn't they get more EC votes per capita than White voters? Go to an old people's home and talk to the African American residents there and ask them if a majority of White people has ever implemented laws that oppress the minority Black population in the US. A US president could pander almost exclusively to the White population and win under the current system, and the EC actually makes demographic disparity even worse since the states that benefits the most from the EC have a higher proportion of Christian, White Americans.
        jakeogh 7y ago
        It's not ethical to make decisions on how to treat people based on their ethnicity. We fought very hard to throw these concepts you seem to be promoting into the dustbin of history. They are going to stay there. States are sovereigns. Surrounded by borders. From borders people derive some control over their future. That's why we call this a union. Stop representing them, and they will leave said union.

jakeogh 7y ago

Ya, visit 5 states because the rest wouldn't matter. Right back to the real Tea Party.

pimmen 7y ago
One could reply with "Yeah, visit less than half the population because the rest wouldn't matter. Right back to the real Tea Party."
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Fortunately the United States is not run on a tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College insures minority representation of the states. Unless I have misunderstood you, by that logic a majority of the US could move to TX and rule the rest.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    As your last paragraph shows, the Electoral College does not ensure minority representation of the states (or ”tyranny of the majority of states”) because if enough people moved to Texas it would decide everything. As is right now, about 22% of the population controls half the EC votes. And the senate already ensure representation of all states, so pwople in smaller states have many times more power than fellow citizens in larger states in all parts of the government except the House.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      I'm referring to the executive branch. Less populated state representation in one branch does not negate the need for it in the others. The founders (wisely imo) left national proportional representation to a single entity, the purse-string holders in the House. Removing the electoral college removes the incentive for a presidential candidate to campaign to most of the states.
      - pimmen 7y ago
        I've never understood this argument at all. What's so special about the states that there needs to be power rebalancing in order to prevent larger states from getting more influence? What's so special about Washington DC that it needs more EC votes per capita than New York or California? Why does rural voters in Wyoming need more voting power per capita than rural people in Texas? Because, everytime I hear the arguments about culture and values I don't see how those arguments don't extend to minorities, it would be more modern to set up the Electoral College to accurately represent the diversity of cultures in the US based on actual demographic blocks. Shouldn't Muslim American voters get more EC votes per capita than Christian American voters? The same argument could then also be made for African American voters, shouldn't they get more EC votes per capita than White voters? Go to an old people's home and talk to the African American residents there and ask them if a majority of White people has ever implemented laws that oppress the minority Black population in the US. A US president could pander almost exclusively to the White population and win under the current system, and the EC actually makes demographic disparity even worse since the states that benefits the most from the EC have a higher proportion of Christian, White Americans.
        jakeogh 7y ago
        It's not ethical to make decisions on how to treat people based on their ethnicity. We fought very hard to throw these concepts you seem to be promoting into the dustbin of history. They are going to stay there. States are sovereigns. Surrounded by borders. From borders people derive some control over their future. That's why we call this a union. Stop representing them, and they will leave said union.