Jump to content
NCPcrab NCPcrab (New Member) New Member

"When they go low, we kick them"

Politics   (2,534 Views 48 Comments)
214 Visitors; 2 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 3 of "When they go low, we kick them". If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

The structure of the Senate was a compromise between the bigger states and the smaller states. As you know, the House is representation based on population. The Senate gave smaller states equal representation to the bigger states in one Chamber of Congress. Some believed, correctly in my opinion, that if all representation was based on population that smaller states would often have their interests ignored without much recourse.

Originally, the Senators were picked by state legislatures. That means, a legislature that might be pretty evenly split democrats and republicans had to agree on their representation in the Senate. And, once chosen those Senators were beholden to their state legislature.

This system worked pretty well, but progressives of the "Progressive Era" of the late 1800's and early 1900's realized they would never get a progressive Senate under those conditions. They fought for a change, and eventually the 17th Amendment was ratified.

I doubt that the writers of the constitution could have foreseen the the imbalance of numbers of voters in the various states, say California versus Wyoming. And I am sure you have seen the comparison of how many voters are represented by each senator in the various states :

Population represented by state legislators - Ballotpedia

It just seems inherently unfair that a electoral vote that represents 19,000 people has the same weight as an electoral vote that represents 900,000 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Population represented by state legislators - Ballotpedia

It just seems inherently unfair that a electoral vote that represents 19,000 people has the same weight as an electoral vote that represents 900,000 people.

North Dakota's estimated 2017 population is 755,393. With 2 senators and 1 representative, that's 1 electoral vote per 251,797 persons. California's estimated 2017 population is 39,536,653. With 2 senators and 53 representatives, that's 1 electoral vote for 718,848 persons.

If you are going to compare state population with electoral votes, you should consider using representation in the US House and Senate, as that is what the electoral college is based on, and not the membership of the state house and Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
North Dakota's estimated 2017 population is 755,393. With 2 senators and 1 representative, that's 1 electoral vote per 251,797 persons. California's estimated 2017 population is 39,536,653. With 2 senators and 53 representatives, that's 1 electoral vote for 718,848 persons.

If you are going to compare state population with electoral votes, you should consider using representation in the US House and Senate, as that is what the electoral college is based on, and not the membership of the state house and Senate.

I stand corrected. I was posting on my lunch half hour, and made an error. So, do you think it is fair that proportionally, citizens of North Dakota have a greater say in who the next president of the United States should be than the citizens of California? How about Wyoming, with a population 579,315? That comes out to about 193,000 citizens per electoral vote.

I also do not think it fair that for most states, all electoral votes go to the candidate who got the majority of votes. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand corrected. I was posting on my lunch half hour, and made an error. So, do you think it is fair that proportionally, citizens of North Dakota have a greater say in who the next president of the United States should be than the citizens of California? How about Wyoming, with a population 579,315? That comes out to about 193,000 citizens per electoral vote.

[...]

I'm not going to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the electoral college system. As both of us seem to believe strongly in our opinion, I doubt either of us will be able to sway the other's opinion.

[...]

I also do not think it fair that for most states, all electoral votes go to the candidate who got the majority of votes. Do you?

I think that we agree on this point. I think the method used by Maine and Nebraska in which the winner of the congressional district is awarded one delegate for each district won, and the overall winner of the state popular vote is awarded the two delegates corresponding to the two senators is much more representative way to award delegates. Whether or not it's fair is another issue, one which I doubt will be solved regardless of the method used to award delegates. Especially when you consider that Mr. Trump won the popular vote in 230 congressional districts compared with Ms. Clinton's 205.

Of the various options I've read about, I think moving to the proportional assignment of delegates has the better chance of being implemented as this is entirely a decision left to the state. Of the other two options I most frequently hear or read about, either a state awarding all of their delegates to the winner of the popular vote or eliminating the electoral college outright, I don't see either of these coming to fruition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the electoral college system. As both of us seem to believe strongly in our opinion, I doubt either of us will be able to sway the other's opinion.

It was a simple yes or no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a simple yes or no question.

Then yes, I think it's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement

The last two Republican presidents lost the popular vote. Of course conservatives want to preserve the mechanism that allows that misrepresentation of We The People.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then yes, I think it's fair.

I've been advocating the abolishment of the Electoral College for Years! (Decades!) It doesn't make sense to continue it in the 21st Century. Quite frankly, the reasons held by our "Founding Fathers" in creating the Electoral College are questionable, at least by today's values and standards.

We have vastly different ideas to what constitutes "Fair". (And, it seems that we hold vastly different political values.)

Edited by Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been advocating the abolishment of the Electoral College for Years! (Decades!) It doesn't make sense to continue it in the 21st Century. Quite frankly, the reasons held by our "Found Fathers" in creating the Electoral College are questionable, at least by today's values and standards.

[...]

What mechanism do you think we should use?

Proportional assignment of delegates? In my opinion, this would most "fair" as it would better represent the voters of the individual districts. I suspect that many on the left would not support this as Mr. Trump would still have won.

Abolish the electoral college and provide for the direct election of the president? I doubt this will ever happen. First, I think it highly unlikely that either party could muster 68 votes in the Senate and 288 votes in the House. If, by some means they were able to do so, I seriously doubt 38 states would ratify it in time. The thing to remember, and it's been mentioned by at least one other member here, is that both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump would have implemented a very different strategy if the goal was popular vote. While it's possible that Ms. Clinton could have won the popular vote under this process it's just as possible that Mr. Trump could have as well.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? How would this be "fairer" than the current system?

Which of the reasons "held by our "Found Fathers" in creating the Electoral College" do you find questionable? And why

[...]

We have vastly different ideas to what constitutes "Fair". (And, it seems that we hold vastly different political values.)

How exactly is the electoral college not fair? And what, in your opinion would be fair?

And, as you've mentioned my values, what exactly are you trying to say? And more importantly, who are you to presume that you have any idea what my values are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chare - The issues regarding abolishing the Electoral College have been discussed here before. . . ad nauseum. Please take the time and energy to go back and read them.

As for differing values. . . I deliberately and specifically wrote "political values". If you support the GOP, which over the years your past posts have shown that you do, your Political Values have been exposed. Now take a look at the current policies supported and enacted by the GOP. Do you still support those policies? If so, then, again, your Political Values continue to be exposed.

Edited by Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chare - The issues regarding abolishing the Electoral College have been discussed before. . ad nasueum. Please take the time and energy to go back and read them.

As for differing values. . . I deliberately and specifically wrote "political values". If support the GOP, which over the years your past posts have shown that you do, your Political Values have been exposed. Now take a look at the current policies supported and enacted by the GOP. Do you still support those policies? If so, then, again, your Political Values continue to be exposed.

Definitely agree with Ted, Chare, regarding the latter half of his statement.

I always read your posts because as one of the few conservatives posting here, you are the only one who makes logical, reasonable sense.

Therefore, we are aware of many, but perhaps not all, of your political values.

To imply anything less, is disingenuous, and I know you are better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the latest example of incivility by a White Nationist group towards a Democrat.

From the NY Post

Nancy Pelosi Cursed Out By Protesters In FL

Members of the group, Proud Boys, dropped the f-bomb repeatedly, while following her.

Seems like Huckabee Sanders was lucky to be asked to leave a restaurant. She could have be harassed by White Nationalists.

Oh, wait, that wouldn't happen to her! Her boss defends these deplorables!!!!!

Good people on both sides, says Trump.

Right.

Cue Fleetwood Mac: Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies.

Update: Fox News, is reporting that the protest was organized by Nelson Diaz, Chair of the Republican Party in Miami-Dade County.

They are basing their report on story in Washington Post.

Again, no way would Republicans organize an angry mob that consists of White Nationalists!

Edited by Lil Nel
Update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×