Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme

[One Bad Pig]

So you concede the number of votes per electoral vote is off. We do need to change the number of senators per state. Large states should have more.

[The Thinker]

No it isn't. In the Senate, they all get 2 votes, regardless of their population.

Not in the presidential election. I already showed you how small state votes count more.

If you honestly think that the smaller states will EVER vote themselves out of any reasonable say in the government, then you are high.

Of course they won't. But you don't need all states for a constitutional amendment.

Basically ignoring their own people in the process, right?

They are listening to the people of the country.

They do. The MAJORITY of electoral College votes wins. You are not really electing a President, stupid. You are electing your state's EC electors.

Which must change. We have a system where 10 or so states get all the attention in general elections, and millions of people's votes don't count. It should be a straight popular vote. Only a person who knows they can't win such a thing would be against this.

And people who lose according to the established rules want to bring up irrelevant technicalities.

Makes no sense.

Thank you for agreeing.

I don't. Neither do you. If you knew that republicans would win the popular vote from now on and always lose the white house, you'd change your mind.

[The Thinker]

Yup. It makes no sense to have a state with 40 million people have the same number of senators as a state with 600 thousand.

[The Thinker]

Then why are you not whining about how grossly unfair Congress is?

We are NOT a Democracy. We are a REPUBLIC. It is the United STATES of America. The States are important and not just how many people live here or there. That is why each state has two Senators instead of allocation by population. That is why Congress makes laws and not the people. That is why we have Representatives and not just all be part of congress via the Internet. That is why we have Electors instead of the Popular Vote.

Actually other than the standard two votes for the Senators that every state gets, Wyoming has 1 electoral vote/representative per 568,300 people. California has 1 vote/Rep per 704,566 people. So it is not that great a difference as you think.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml
----
Law limits the house to 435 voting members. After the states with one get theirs, the remaining population is divided by the remaining seats to establish a base rate. Each state is allocated seats to the nearest whole number of seats. Then the state legislature divides the state into approximately equal districts, but has a lot of other rules to follow. However most districts in that state will start out within 2-3% of the same number. Then population growth or shrinkage over the next ten years will affect the size of any district in any state but will not be changed until the next census. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...8163016AA3S8NZ

People do make laws. Ever heard of the ballot initiative? And if you think the states will lost status, just get more people to move to them.

And yes, the senate is unfair. The house, not as much.

[Jaecp]

People do make laws. Ever heard of the ballot initiative? And if you think the states will lost status, just get more people to move to them.

And yes, the senate is unfair. The house, not as much.

The proper comeback to this is that Democracy doesn't just mean Direct Democracy. Also, I don't think all states have laws allowing stuff like that.

We are, in the words of John Adams, a representative democracy. This idea that we're a Republic and not a Democracy is weird.

[Terraceth]

So you concede the number of votes per electoral vote is off. We do need to change the number of senators per state. Large states should have more.

The whole point of the Senate is that all states get equal representation in it. Now, it's true higher population should count for something, and that's addressed by having larger states get their increased population represented in the House of Representatives.

[Cow Poke]

The whole point of the Senate is that all states get equal representation in it. Now, it's true higher population should count for something, and that's addressed by having larger states get their increased population represented in the House of Representatives.

It's kinda like the framers were thinking about balance of powers or something.

[One Bad Pig]

Yup. It makes no sense to have a state with 40 million people have the same number of senators as a state with 600 thousand.

In isolation, correct. However, in the real world, it's a vital counterbalance to the House to prevent the large states from running roughshod over the small states.

[KingsGambit]

The House isn't unfair? If anything the House is probably more unfair because of how ridiculously gerrymandered the whole thing is.

[Cow Poke]

The House isn't unfair? If anything the House is probably more unfair because of how ridiculously gerrymandered the whole thing is.

Just for fun... the word 'gerrymander' came when the Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, drew a district in 1812 that many said looked like a salamander. The Boston Gazette described the governor's action as a "Gerry-Mander".

[rogue06]

In isolation, correct. However, in the real world, it's a vital counterbalance to the House to prevent the large states from running roughshod over the small states.

Yup. We would have a very small number of states selecting who was president with everyone else having no say in the matter. In that sort of situation we would be beset with secession movements since those states would have little reason to stay.

[One Bad Pig]

The House isn't unfair? If anything the House is probably more unfair because of how ridiculously gerrymandered the whole thing is.

It sort of makes up for taking away the Senate from the control of the state legislatures.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yup. We would have a very small number of states selecting who was president with everyone else having no say in the matter. In that sort of situation we would be beset with secession movements since those states would have little reason to stay.

Which, I might add, was one of the reasons for the US civil war. If you look at the electrical map from the 1860 election, you'll notice that not a single electrical vote, from the south, went towards Republican candidate, Lincoln. Granted, the vote was split 4 ways, but even adding together the other three candidates wouldn't of made a difference. As you can imagine, this didn't make the south very happy.

[robrecht]

Thinker, think of it this way. The STATES elect the President. We the people just tell our States who we want them to vote for. And under the current system States like Californian have a LOT more sway than states like Wyoming. Rightly so, because they are larger states (population wise). The system IS fair, and it works.

You keep forgetting that we are not just a bunch of people living in the USA, we are a Federation of various States, each with it's own government and powers. You are a citizen of a state, then of the USA. Pretty similar to the EU, but there it is countries instead of states, so it is clearer to see the distinctions.

So the states count in deciding the federal government since the federal government governs the states, which in turn governs you. That is why the states each get two Senators and two Electoral Votes, right off the bat. Because the States themselves are important. Not just the people living in them.

This is a little more statist than the common understanding. According to the US Constitution, we are indeed citizens of the United States. For example:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

The constitution does also speak of citizens of states, but only when speaking of federal judicial powers in cases between states and residents of different states and when speaking of privileges and immunities to which citizens of each state are entitled because they are applicable in all the states:

between two or more Statesbetween a State and Citizens of another StateCitizens of different StatesCitizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

See also the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America.. One does not first take an oath of allegiance to an individual state and thereby become a citizen of the United States.

[Teallaura]

That argument works equally well for counties as for states. Arguably much better - Harris county (Texas) has 50,000 times as many voters as Loving county (Texas), yet California only has about 100 times the population of Wyoming. Yet you are not protesting the use of popular vote to determine the pledges of the electoral college voters in each state.

But I don't think you're insane. Only dim.

Okay, I get that MM and you are talking past each other but your point escapes me as well. States = excepting maybe California, Texas and Alaska, aren't geographically isolated in the way that distant separates states. Counties - and populations tend to share more interests, values, et al - it's a very different animal than the federation. Birmingham, annoyingly enough, eats up a lot of the legislative workload - big cities do that - but its interests aren't served by destroying the interests of Coffee County - partially because they aren't that close together but mostly because sigificantly hurting the economic interests of the rest of your state comes back to bite. California would not have similar issues with Alabama more than in principle.

That's part of the confusion, I think - counties are very different animals from states so the analogy I think you were making doesn't really make sense to me.

Popular vote is used to elect electors rather than the president in order to balance against the pop vote - allowing it to have a voice without allowing it to rule. Given the nastiness of early campaigns - and modern ones - the Founders were right.