5 ms·

Yes that is how it should be. Each state has different interests. By having electoral votes based on population we are not avoiding the problem of population

Yes that is how it should be. Each state has different interests. By having electoral votes based on population we are not avoiding the problem of population centers directing the country. How is electing a president different than votes for a constitutional amendment? Each state gets one vote there.

maxerickson 6y ago
Well, for one thing, the foundational document that the states used to establish the union has different rules for electing president than for modifying the union. You aren't arguing that part of it, the part where people (likely) wouldn't put up with the system you propose.
cma 6y ago
D.C. gets presidential votes I thought?
- js2 6y ago
  Yes it has three EC votes which is why it’s 538 and not 535 (435 reps + 100 senators) EC votes.
bfrog 6y ago
Tax revenues which pay for federal services like the armed forces, led by the president, aren't equally contributed by each state. The day that happens is the day Wyoming's vote can be equal to California. It'd also be the day California succeeds from the union.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  You dont get to vote on how federal revenues are spent. You already have representatives to do that job. Why should an individual state get more say in who the president should be if we already have congress critters to argue budget?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Because a representative democracy privileges the voice of the many over the voices of the few. For example in the current contest if it plays out as expected the likely winner will defeat the loser by 4 million votes and your methodology would hand the 4 million vote loser the win. Indeed this would become the norm
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > Tax revenues which pay for federal services like the armed forces, led by the president, aren't equally contributed by each state. That's irrelevant. If it were, Bill Gates' vote would be worth 1M times mine.
majormajor 6y ago
Why do you believe "population centers directing the country" is a bigger problem than "arbitrary historical boundaries directing the country?" If you replace the euphemism "population centers" with the word "people" you get "the problem of people directing the country"... which doesn't sound like a problem to me compared to the minority direction we have today.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  People in population centers tend to think similarly due to a similar environment. What a city desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with rural voters. You must see the danger in a few, albeit large, groups having the majority of the population. Say LA and New York decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in any way but force.
  - theplague42 6y ago
    Do you think that's a bigger issue than 2000 and 2016 where more people voted for the other guy? Also, wouldn't rural areas have the same problem? And probably even worse due to less diversity?
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    People in rural areas think similarly due to a similar environment. What a rural area desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with city voters. You must see the danger of minority having the majority of the voting power. Say Louisiana and the mid-west would decide that a fascist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents in the cities stand up against that in any way but force. Works just as well, and is what is actually happening.
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Ok, accepting it can go both ways. Why would you want one small portion of the country deciding the direction of the country instead of each state having an equal say? Isn't an equal say more fair for all states?
blackboxlogic 6y ago
You've rediscovered the ancient art of drawing lines on a map to make some people more powerful than other people. Usually preferred by the 'some people'. Always followed immediate after by attempts to justify why cheating is good.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  A popular vote opens the possibility of candidates essentially gerrymandering their campaign to look like their in group. Similar to how swing states are more heavily campaigned now. Both give small areas an overwhelming amount of power in selecting an executive.

maxerickson 6y ago

Well, for one thing, the foundational document that the states used to establish the union has different rules for electing president than for modifying the union. You aren't arguing that part of it, the part where people (likely) wouldn't put up with the system you propose.

cma 6y ago

D.C. gets presidential votes I thought?

js2 6y ago
Yes it has three EC votes which is why it’s 538 and not 535 (435 reps + 100 senators) EC votes.

bfrog 6y ago

Tax revenues which pay for federal services like the armed forces, led by the president, aren't equally contributed by each state. The day that happens is the day Wyoming's vote can be equal to California. It'd also be the day California succeeds from the union.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
You dont get to vote on how federal revenues are spent. You already have representatives to do that job. Why should an individual state get more say in who the president should be if we already have congress critters to argue budget?
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Because a representative democracy privileges the voice of the many over the voices of the few. For example in the current contest if it plays out as expected the likely winner will defeat the loser by 4 million votes and your methodology would hand the 4 million vote loser the win. Indeed this would become the norm
perryizgr8 6y ago
> Tax revenues which pay for federal services like the armed forces, led by the president, aren't equally contributed by each state. That's irrelevant. If it were, Bill Gates' vote would be worth 1M times mine.

majormajor 6y ago

Why do you believe "population centers directing the country" is a bigger problem than "arbitrary historical boundaries directing the country?" If you replace the euphemism "population centers" with the word "people" you get "the problem of people directing the country"... which doesn't sound like a problem to me compared to the minority direction we have today.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
People in population centers tend to think similarly due to a similar environment. What a city desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with rural voters. You must see the danger in a few, albeit large, groups having the majority of the population. Say LA and New York decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in any way but force.
- theplague42 6y ago
  Do you think that's a bigger issue than 2000 and 2016 where more people voted for the other guy? Also, wouldn't rural areas have the same problem? And probably even worse due to less diversity?
- cycomanic 6y ago
  People in rural areas think similarly due to a similar environment. What a rural area desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with city voters. You must see the danger of minority having the majority of the voting power. Say Louisiana and the mid-west would decide that a fascist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents in the cities stand up against that in any way but force. Works just as well, and is what is actually happening.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Ok, accepting it can go both ways. Why would you want one small portion of the country deciding the direction of the country instead of each state having an equal say? Isn't an equal say more fair for all states?

blackboxlogic 6y ago

You've rediscovered the ancient art of drawing lines on a map to make some people more powerful than other people. Usually preferred by the 'some people'. Always followed immediate after by attempts to justify why cheating is good.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
A popular vote opens the possibility of candidates essentially gerrymandering their campaign to look like their in group. Similar to how swing states are more heavily campaigned now. Both give small areas an overwhelming amount of power in selecting an executive.