They do make sense. We have a very stable government for a reason. A popular vote is something people who do understand the Constitution or the power of the states.
Being president isn’t about being popular. It is about the states picking the person to represent them.
We are a representative government. We are not a boy band where popularity matters.
A popular vote is something people who do understand the Constitution or the power of the states.
I can’t parse that sentence.
Being president isn’t about being popular. It is about the states picking the person to represent them.
We are a representative government. We are not a boy band where popularity matters.
What? Within each state it’s a popularity contest.
So you’re saying popular vote or ‘boy band popularity contest’ is fine within each state, but not for the whole nation at once? What’s the difference other than that the electoral college is imprecise? We have to disproportionately select electors where people in North Dakota count 3x as much as people in Texas or California? Why’s that? The Senate is already bad enough where 30 million people in Texas get the same weight as 4 million people in Oregon or 700,000 in North Dakota. I don’t see why selecting electors by popular vote and then having them vote makes any difference other than as a charade to pretend states are independent.
The idea that the US is a coalition of independent states made sense over 150 years ago or 250 years ago, but not so much now. As much as say, some idiots in Texas fantasize about it, states are not free to leave the US and it’s no different than any country made up of provinces.
I would be more fine with the electoral college if the number of electors was updated to match growing populations. The system also is super lame in how it makes the entire election come down to tens of thousands of votes in ‘swing states’.
What? Within each state it’s a popularity contest.
To a degree but maybe you forgot the electors? They have the controlling vote. In 33 states, there are laws against faithless electors, but the others do not.
It sounds like you don’t understand how the system works or why it works the way it does. If you are not aware of electors then you really don’t get how the ELECTORAL college works.
The idea that the US is a coalition of independent states made sense over 150 years ago or 250 years ago, but not so much now
It makes more sense now than ever. That is the basic structure of our government. The 10th amendment even clarifies the power structure.
As much as say, some idiots in Texas fantasize about it, states are not free to leave the US and it’s no different than any country made up of provinces.
That is why we have the Electoral College. That way, each state will have a fair vote for president.
The system also is super lame in how it makes the entire election come down to tens of thousands of votes in ‘swing states’.
Now that is something I can agree with. It puts to much focus on a few states every few years since it is unlikely anyone will visit a solid red/blue state but the popular vote will lead to instability that would cause another civil war.
It would also require a constitutional amendment, which would never pass. Most states would never pass a system that would diminish their power.
It is something the left whines about but that isn’t going to change in our lifetime. You would 3/4 the states to agree to change it and that isn’t happening anytime soon.
I’m obviously aware of electors. They’re selected by what you called a ‘popularity contest’.
A ‘fair vote for president’ is not really what I’d call the electoral college. Why would my vote count for more in Wyoming than Florida? It’s not consistent either. Large states still have way more power, so I’m not sure what that’s solving.
Okay, glad we can agree on swing states. How could that change under the current system, though? I guess small population states are never going to be as popular for campaigning as places where you can go visit 20x the population in just one city.
The left complains about this system because gives conservatives power disproportionate to their actual numbers, while we are still nominally a democracy. If there was anything like reasonable bipartisan legislative work, it might be better, but things have become so contentious. And yes, I don’t expect to see it change because conservative states would have to choose to give up power.
They’re selected by what you called a ‘popularity contest’.
Historically they didn’t have to go off the popular vote. It is a check and balance that many states have abandoned.
Why would my vote count for more in Wyoming than Florida?
You are still missing who votes. You seem to think you vote, but it is really the state that votes. That is why your vote in Wyoming counts more.
Large states still have way more power, so I’m not sure what that’s solving.
but it is balanced by the other states. They don’t have as much clout as they could.
How could that change under the current system, though?
I don’t know that it can be changed in our current system but the swing states change over time. Florida use to be a swing state. Texas will become one in the next ten years or so. Maybe as early as after this election. THey went from a solid red to a light red.
The left complains about this system because gives conservatives power disproportionate to their actual numbers,
Not really. Since we are state based government, a popular vote would give to much power to blue states vs red states which are the majority of the country.
You are still missing who votes. You seem to think you vote, but it is really the state that votes.
Uh… no, that’s my point. If electors are selected by a popular vote, that’s the vote. Very rare for electors to switch candidates.
This states thing is a questionable proxy system. We are sort of, theoretically, a republic of states. Sure. However, it’s a flawed system that isn’t quite relevant to how the country has developed. It’s silly to act like a system invented 250 years ago will always be the best or most effective. The founders of the country didn’t expect for the systems to never change. They also didn’t expect a party duopoly and hoped to avoid the current situation.
Anyway, it’s clearly not purely a ‘states vote’ situation since it votes are weighed by population. A pure one state, one vote situation would be like that. Texas Republicans recently had a brilliant idea like that where each county would have one vote, which is obviously absurdly anti-democratic - imagine 4 million people in Houston having the same vote as 72 people in some tiny county.
Uh… no, that’s my point. If electors are selected by a popular vote, that’s the vote. Very rare for electors to switch candidates
Because 33 states have made laws which I think are unconditional. The electors are a check and balance of the system. The idea is to prevent the wrong type of person being elected.
They also didn’t expect a party duopoly and hoped to avoid the current situation
Not they did did. That’s something very uniquely American that grew and stuck. It’s a shame. More parties would be better.
anti-democratic
Our system was designed to be anti-democratic. We were designed to be a republic.
If we were a democracy, being gay would still be a crime. We don’t want that. We have the constitution to help balance things out. People could vote for really bad ideas that destroy the country.
I’m not a democrat. I’m not a racist weirdo. So I’d never fit in.
I’m old school Republican but the party has taken a turn to just be an opposition party rather than actually having ideas.
I fully support abortion publicly which makes me an outlier in the party. I don’t care if anyone is gay or trans which make me an outlier with the religious right. I’m for less spending which makes me an outlier with both parties.
There really isn’t a viable party that economically conservative and socially more liberal. Some people say libertarians but most of them are just anti-tax people and I’m not opposed to taxes. There is a difference in wanting the lowest tax possible and those who oppose all taxes.
They do make sense. We have a very stable government for a reason. A popular vote is something people who do understand the Constitution or the power of the states.
Being president isn’t about being popular. It is about the states picking the person to represent them.
We are a representative government. We are not a boy band where popularity matters.
I can’t parse that sentence.
What? Within each state it’s a popularity contest.
So you’re saying popular vote or ‘boy band popularity contest’ is fine within each state, but not for the whole nation at once? What’s the difference other than that the electoral college is imprecise? We have to disproportionately select electors where people in North Dakota count 3x as much as people in Texas or California? Why’s that? The Senate is already bad enough where 30 million people in Texas get the same weight as 4 million people in Oregon or 700,000 in North Dakota. I don’t see why selecting electors by popular vote and then having them vote makes any difference other than as a charade to pretend states are independent.
The idea that the US is a coalition of independent states made sense over 150 years ago or 250 years ago, but not so much now. As much as say, some idiots in Texas fantasize about it, states are not free to leave the US and it’s no different than any country made up of provinces.
I would be more fine with the electoral college if the number of electors was updated to match growing populations. The system also is super lame in how it makes the entire election come down to tens of thousands of votes in ‘swing states’.
It sounds like you don’t understand how the system works or why it works the way it does. If you are not aware of electors then you really don’t get how the ELECTORAL college works.
It makes more sense now than ever. That is the basic structure of our government. The 10th amendment even clarifies the power structure.
That is why we have the Electoral College. That way, each state will have a fair vote for president.
Now that is something I can agree with. It puts to much focus on a few states every few years since it is unlikely anyone will visit a solid red/blue state but the popular vote will lead to instability that would cause another civil war.
It would also require a constitutional amendment, which would never pass. Most states would never pass a system that would diminish their power.
It is something the left whines about but that isn’t going to change in our lifetime. You would 3/4 the states to agree to change it and that isn’t happening anytime soon.
I’m obviously aware of electors. They’re selected by what you called a ‘popularity contest’.
A ‘fair vote for president’ is not really what I’d call the electoral college. Why would my vote count for more in Wyoming than Florida? It’s not consistent either. Large states still have way more power, so I’m not sure what that’s solving.
Okay, glad we can agree on swing states. How could that change under the current system, though? I guess small population states are never going to be as popular for campaigning as places where you can go visit 20x the population in just one city.
The left complains about this system because gives conservatives power disproportionate to their actual numbers, while we are still nominally a democracy. If there was anything like reasonable bipartisan legislative work, it might be better, but things have become so contentious. And yes, I don’t expect to see it change because conservative states would have to choose to give up power.
Historically they didn’t have to go off the popular vote. It is a check and balance that many states have abandoned.
You are still missing who votes. You seem to think you vote, but it is really the state that votes. That is why your vote in Wyoming counts more.
but it is balanced by the other states. They don’t have as much clout as they could.
I don’t know that it can be changed in our current system but the swing states change over time. Florida use to be a swing state. Texas will become one in the next ten years or so. Maybe as early as after this election. THey went from a solid red to a light red.
Not really. Since we are state based government, a popular vote would give to much power to blue states vs red states which are the majority of the country.
Uh… no, that’s my point. If electors are selected by a popular vote, that’s the vote. Very rare for electors to switch candidates.
This states thing is a questionable proxy system. We are sort of, theoretically, a republic of states. Sure. However, it’s a flawed system that isn’t quite relevant to how the country has developed. It’s silly to act like a system invented 250 years ago will always be the best or most effective. The founders of the country didn’t expect for the systems to never change. They also didn’t expect a party duopoly and hoped to avoid the current situation.
Anyway, it’s clearly not purely a ‘states vote’ situation since it votes are weighed by population. A pure one state, one vote situation would be like that. Texas Republicans recently had a brilliant idea like that where each county would have one vote, which is obviously absurdly anti-democratic - imagine 4 million people in Houston having the same vote as 72 people in some tiny county.
Because 33 states have made laws which I think are unconditional. The electors are a check and balance of the system. The idea is to prevent the wrong type of person being elected.
Not they did did. That’s something very uniquely American that grew and stuck. It’s a shame. More parties would be better.
Our system was designed to be anti-democratic. We were designed to be a republic.
If we were a democracy, being gay would still be a crime. We don’t want that. We have the constitution to help balance things out. People could vote for really bad ideas that destroy the country.
i would love more parties and more choices. If we could get something besides FPTP voting that would be great.
I’m not a democrat. I’m not a racist weirdo. So I’d never fit in.
I’m old school Republican but the party has taken a turn to just be an opposition party rather than actually having ideas.
I fully support abortion publicly which makes me an outlier in the party. I don’t care if anyone is gay or trans which make me an outlier with the religious right. I’m for less spending which makes me an outlier with both parties.
There really isn’t a viable party that economically conservative and socially more liberal. Some people say libertarians but most of them are just anti-tax people and I’m not opposed to taxes. There is a difference in wanting the lowest tax possible and those who oppose all taxes.