721–730 of 932 posts
Needs of specific groups of people can be taken into account as transparent supplementary conditions. Sparsely populated areas constitute one potential parameter. Maybe the opinions of poor and ill people can also be taken into account for while respecting their privacy.
1) the presidency has grown too powerful and imperial with a bureaucracy so massive the Qing emperor would be jealous. 2) 15 States can do what they want, but unless they meet the provisions in Article 5, the college is here to stay. Thank goodness the Framers had the foresight to include the process for amending the Constitution in the document.
The states have the absolute right to assign their electors as they see fit. The framers intended for them to be locally elected or proportional, like Maine and Nebraska today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not going to be able to buy off 30,000 reps if you are a lobyist. More reps and less staff are the way to win back democracy.
It is probably cheaper to buy off a large number of low-power reps than a smaller number of high power ones
I am not saying whether this is good or bad.
But, I think the two party system would crumble very quickly if the Electoral College were removed, and something else would come into place instead.
Disclaimer: I do not vote despite being an American citizen. I am also an anarchist.
For 32+ years, the fact is that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote 7 times in the last 8 elections. I am not saying whether this is good or bad. But, I think the two party system would crumble very quickly if the Electoral College were removed, and something else would come into place instead. Disclaimer: I do not vote despite being an American citizen. I am also an anarchist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, at that extreme, it's big, and I probably could state my claim more precisely. Here's my claim: if you drew a curve of electoral votes per person by percentile, there would be a very small area that was significantly elevated, and the remaining portion would be moderately flat. Because Wyoming's population is so small, the absolute impact isn't that big. Go up just a few spots to Hawaii and it's more like a 2:1…
To quantify that "very close", in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, which is 1.5% of the voting population. I would not call that very close. It isn't a difference of some 1000 votes. It's an election of a minority leader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Swing states shift, though. California was basically solid red from the 1950s through the 1980s. Until 2016, few people would have called Wisconsin or Michigan "swing states" judging from their voting in the past few elections. People move, demographics change.
> California was basically solid red from the 1950s through the 1980s Suddenly swung in 1992, and has been seen as solid blue since—not really an example of swing states switching as a state rapidly moving from Republican lock to Democratic lock.
For 32+ years, the fact is that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote 7 times in the last 8 elections. I am not saying whether this is good or bad. But, I think the two party system would crumble very quickly if the Electoral College were removed, and something else would come into place instead. Disclaimer: I do not vote despite being an American citizen. I am also an anarchist.
If this means viable 3rd parties, am all for it.
For example I think you would still have a broad selection of candidates who differ greatly on economic ideas. But, I think that social ideas that currently are still being debated (abortion, church and state, drugs) would be resolved. I am willing to estimate that maybe 70% of Americans agree on these social issues, compared to economic issues being more 50/50.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If rural issues aren't handled then you'll have even more urbanization and even more expensive housing. The odds are already attacked against rural life. > Why are the concerns of the people living in LAC less important than the concerns of the people in Nevada or Arkansas? So instead you want even more people from Nevada and Arkansas to move to LAC, because that's where politicians will pay attention?
That doesn't seem any more likely to me than Californians moving to Wyoming to make their vote count today.
It's definitely not a given, but predicting what would happen is not a clear exercise. You can't change the rules without changing peoples behavior.