So since you're against this, then you first must admit California should lose electoral votes and representatives in the house because of all the illegal aliens in the state, right?
In Defense Of The Electoral College
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
So since you're against this, then you first must admit California should lose electoral votes and representatives in the house because of all the illegal aliens in the state, right?
The electoral college is determined by the number of senators in a state. There are several good alternatives but none of them involve the popular vote. For the record, I think the electoral college needs revising because there are several better voting systems (First Passed the Post doesnt make sense anyway).
If a national popular vote was the case CA, TX, FL, NY, and PA would be the only states with voting rights. By popular vote these states are the most important by far, with NY and CA being the main reason the popular vote almost universally swings to the left.
You could argue we could adjust senators, but the problem still occurs. The shortsightness of anti-elector rhetoric is astonishing. They claim it causes injustice, yet their proposed solution would literally, and I mean literally, disenfranchise hundreds of millions of voters. This could tail off into another discussion on the distribution of senators by party and how we are already disenfranchising voters by having senators represent some 300,000 people or more in some cases.
As a short aside I do believe a farmer should have a higher value than liberal professor. Why shouldn't the suppliers of our food (givers) be valued more than than a liberal professor (taker)?
Looking at your other post you claim this information requires no more than a middle school education, yet you fail to realize popular vote systems exist in several states already for determining election results. The problem still exists in that space, but it's not nearly as pronounced as a national popular vote.
Doing rails of whatever the local snopes dealer gives you is not living in a "fact-based" reality. The problem of voting has puzzled political scientists for centuries and there are several options available none of which your fact-based reality has included. Almost universally the idea of including a popular vote has a realization that only 5 states would actually matter. I don't think your fact-based reality has discovered math.
But, you're not pushing this idea for intellectual curosity nor legitimate concern for a fair vote. I don't think you're an idiot. You're pushing this idea because in today's California exodus the democrat popular vote in TX would certainly swing the popular vote towards a virtual monarchy for your party. Your intentions are not intellectual, mr. "facts", your intentions are insidious. Certainly, it must feel good to present the idea that "this most go because of slavery" and then rest on your laurels without having said a single thing on the execution of the alternative.
If your only justification for abolishment of the electorate is a historical artifact about slavery you have absolute no "fact-based" leg to stand on when it comes to the actual implementation of your proposed solution. I'd suggest perhaps taking a two semester course in government like the rest of us university educated graduates had to. It would be enlightening for you. Maybe you'll realize the political game being played that you're willingly going along with.
Last edited:
States aren’t people and don’t need voting rights for the presidency. They’re already reflected in the Senate. In my opinion the presidency can’t and shouldn’t try to reflect the desire of individual state interests. Whether you want to admit it or not the system for deciding the presidency is less democratic and is rooted in slavery.
I think the House should be divided by a total of eligible voters. DC deserves a representative as well. I don’t think it should be decided by the Census. I also believe that anybody who’s over 18 and an American citizen should be eligible to vote. It should be an absolute right that can’t be taken away based on debts/convicted crimes/etc. Though I think there’s probably a more accurate way to measure the number of American citizens than the Census. Just look at their SSN and primary address.
Last edited:
Not quite right. Includes House Reps too.
Notice how 4 of those states have coastlines... entryway for illegals? Then getting them in on the illegal voting?
I think I saw somewhere.... that if Hellary's vote advantage from CA alone were eliminated, Trump would have also won the popular vote. (Without the Electoral College, would CA be the only state that matters in a national election?)
Well, no. That's limited to 2 per State. However if/when the Dems get full control of the Government, we can look for DC, PR and DR(?) being pushed to become states.... presumably Democrap states... bringing the number of Senators to 106... and the Dems believing that would give them a PERMANENT MAJORITY in the Senate! Haven't heard any discussion about what would happen to House Rep allocations...
House of Representative seats are also limited... to 435 total. However the number of Reps allocated to a state is reapportioned periodically (based upon census cycle?). The number of Reps a state gets is based upon the number of PEOPLE in the state... NOT citizens! That's part of the reason the "coastline states", especially CA... want illegals. Even they they can't sneak them into the voting booth, the state gets more sway in the House by being allocated more Reps.
Last edited:
No, the states are not reflected in The Senate. They were at one time before direct election of Senators began, but not now. If the states were reflected in The Senate, Republicans would have a much bigger majority. Your posting reveals the high level of your ignorance.
We have added states throughout our history, PR, DR statehoods are valid discussions, personally don’t think they have a lot of traction outside the fringe left. Structuring the interior as this country grew westward to it’s western shoreline was necessary. Alaska, Hawaii were militarily necessary. Caribbean islands are settled territories, they ain’t up for grabs or going anywhere.
D.C. on the other hand is a constitutional issue. It was never designed to be a state or inside a state’s borders.