The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[carpedm9587]

So you like having representative government in congress but not in electing the president? Why should we even bother with representative congress? If a state just gives away it's power to some "pact" then why not go all the way? We don't need no stinking states. We don't need a congress to represent those states that we don't need. We could do everything with a popular vote.

I like having representative government at every level, Sparko - with one persn one vote at every level appropriate to that level.

Congressman represents a district - one vote one person per district.
Senator represents a state - one vote one person per state.
President represents a country - one vote one person nationwide.

Not sure how you see this as "not representative." We do popular vote within the district for the congressman. We do popular vote within the state for the senator. I believe we should do popular vote nationwide for the president. Perfectly consistent. Perfectly representational.

[carpedm9587]

It wouldn't be balanced at all. The president would be chosen exclusively based on the interests of urban populations. Yes, there are certain "swing states" in the current system that seem get a lot of focus, but those states still represent a diverse range of social and political interests, which is the entire point behind the electoral college system.

You aren't doing much to change my belief that those who want to abolish the electoral college really don't understand it.

The person would be chosen by the will of the majority - in much the same way congressional representatives and Senators are now elected: popular vote.

[Mountain Man]

The person would be chosen by the will of the majority...

And the majority lives in urban areas like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and so on. If presidents were chosen by the majority then those living in rural areas and lightly populated states may as well stay home on election day since their vote wouldn't matter. It would be two wolves and a sheep letting the majority decide what to eat for dinner.

[carpedm9587]

And the majority lives in urban areas like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and so on. If presidents were chosen by the majority then those living in rural areas and lightly populated states may as well stay home on election day since their vote wouldn't matter. It would be two wolves and a sheep letting the majority decide what to eat for dinner.

What difference does it make where they live?

We elect congressional representatives by popular vote. We elect Senators by popular vote. No one complains that districts can span urban/rural areas (though it is comparatively rare) or that the population of the cities dominates the vote for a Senator. Why would this argument apply differently to a president? I don't see any merit to your argument.

Consistency: elect the office by the popular vote of the region they represent/serve. So elect congressional representatives by the popular vote of the district (which we do). Elect senators by the popular vote of the state (which we do). Elect governors by the popular vote of the state (which we do). Elect state representatives by the popular vote of the districts they represent (which we do). Elect presidents by the popular vote of the nation they represent (which we don't). Only the presidential vote is somehow held to a different model. It makes no sense to me. Popular vote across the board!

[Mountain Man]

What difference does it make where they live?

Because those living in rural areas versus urban areas tend to have different social and political interests, and the president is supposed to care about the entire country and not just the most densely populated states. Do you really not understand this?

The system for choosing Congressmen encourages a diverse array of agendas to the point that it's common for politicians from opposing parties to represent the same state, so your criticism there falls flat.

[carpedm9587]

Because those living in rural areas versus urban areas tend to have different social and political interests, and the president is supposed to care about the entire country and not just the most densely populated states. Do you really not understand this?

I understand that any group is made up of a LOT of interests - and the representative of that group should represent as many of them as possible, but cannot possibly represent them all.

The system for choosing Congressmen encourages a diverse array of agendas to the point that it's common for politicians from opposing parties to represent the same state, so your criticism there falls flat.

The only level at which this kind of opposition can occur at the federal level is the Senate - and 10 out of 40 states currently have members of opposing parties. Districts have a single representative and no one complains. At the state level - the governor is elected by popular vote and comes from one party.

You're making a fuss, IMO, over nothing. One person - one vote: all parties, all levels, all offices. Nothing could be simpler. Your desire to have one group have more voting power because their interests might not be represented simply doesn't pass the sniff test of a democracy, IMO.

As for "representing all interests," I find that ironic for someone who so strongly advocates for a president who represents only his core base and ignores/attacks anyone in the nation that does not agree with him. It makes your "we should all have representation" argument a little disingenuous, IMO.

[Mountain Man]

One person - one vote: all parties, all levels, all offices. Nothing could be simpler.

Or more imbalanced.

[Sparko]

What difference does it make where they live?

We elect congressional representatives by popular vote. We elect Senators by popular vote. No one complains that districts can span urban/rural areas (though it is comparatively rare) or that the population of the cities dominates the vote for a Senator. Why would this argument apply differently to a president? I don't see any merit to your argument.

Consistency: elect the office by the popular vote of the region they represent/serve. So elect congressional representatives by the popular vote of the district (which we do). Elect senators by the popular vote of the state (which we do). Elect governors by the popular vote of the state (which we do). Elect state representatives by the popular vote of the districts they represent (which we do). Elect presidents by the popular vote of the nation they represent (which we don't). Only the presidential vote is somehow held to a different model. It makes no sense to me. Popular vote across the board!

The difference is that this country is a union of states. Each state is basically a separate country that has agreed to be part of the union. Each state wants an equal say in the Federal government. That is why they have 2 senators each. The people wanted to have a say also, that is why we have the house of Representatives. And the states wanted an equal vote in who they want to run the country. That is why we have an electoral college. It is about having a fair UNION of STATES, not a mob rule of one or two states over every other one. If California and NY had control because of their population, they could just vote in a president that would do what they wanted, give them benefits and ignore the rest of the country. And the other states would have no say so in the matter. A few states would control the whole country.

[Mountain Man]

Mob rule is great as long as it's your mob who rules.

[One Bad Pig]

I understand that any group is made up of a LOT of interests - and the representative of that group should represent as many of them as possible, but cannot possibly represent them all.



The only level at which this kind of opposition can occur at the federal level is the Senate - and 10 out of 40 states currently have members of opposing parties. Districts have a single representative and no one complains. At the state level - the governor is elected by popular vote and comes from one party.

You're making a fuss, IMO, over nothing. One person - one vote: all parties, all levels, all offices. Nothing could be simpler. Your desire to have one group have more voting power because their interests might not be represented simply doesn't pass the sniff test of a democracy, IMO.

As for "representing all interests," I find that ironic for someone who so strongly advocates for a president who represents only his core base and ignores/attacks anyone in the nation that does not agree with him. It makes your "we should all have representation" argument a little disingenuous, IMO.

Have you ever read the debates which produced and helped ratify our constitution? Sparko and MM's arguments are not exactly novel.

[carpedm9587]

Or more imbalanced.

You have yet to show how this would be any more imbalanced at the national level than it is at the state or district or town level.

[carpedm9587]

The difference is that this country is a union of states. Each state is basically a separate country that has agreed to be part of the union. Each state wants an equal say in the Federal government. That is why they have 2 senators each. The people wanted to have a say also, that is why we have the house of Representatives. And the states wanted an equal vote in who they want to run the country. That is why we have an electoral college. It is about having a fair UNION of STATES, not a mob rule of one or two states over every other one. If California and NY had control because of their population, they could just vote in a president that would do what they wanted, give them benefits and ignore the rest of the country. And the other states would have no say so in the matter. A few states would control the whole country.

And we have state representation in Congress. It is not necessary at the presidential level, and creates a scenario where the will of the majority is thwarted. The "winner take all" model of most states thwarts any reasonable attempt to have state-level representation. IF each state allocated their electoral votes the same way they are assigned (i.e., two per state, one per district) as is done in Maine and Nebraska, I might say, "OK, I can live with that." As it is, the existing system does nothing more than give my vote 50% more weight than someone in California, New York, or Texas. I cannot see a justification for that distribution. Since it is unlikely that 50 states will agree to such a distribution - the next best approach is to simply resort to the popular vote. There is at least a chance this interstate electoral vote compact will gain the 270 votes it needs, so I back it and encourage others to do so as well.

[carpedm9587]

Have you ever read the debates which produced and helped ratify our constitution? Sparko and MM's arguments are not exactly novel.

A bad argument is a bad argument - it doesn't matter when it was put forward and by whom it was put forward.

[carpedm9587]

Mob rule is great as long as it's your mob who rules.

If "popular vote = mob rule" then we apparently already have mob rule at the town, district, and state levels.

I reject your equivalency as a false one.

[shunyadragon]

The strange greatness of Donald Trump

I may as well concede up front that, because I'm not pitching wild-eyed hissies and launching a hate-fest against Trump, and I post an opinion that also does not do that, then I am obviously a die-hard Trump supporter in every sense of the word!

Trump is indeed strange, oh so unbelievably bizzaro strange.