Grandmas multiple Election related questions for 11/04/20

[Deleted User 310]

If we're nothing more than 50 individual states then we don't need a President. Good grief.

Good grief is right. What a stupid response, even for you.

You're completely ignoring everyone's point. It doesn't matter that they are big relative to their state. It matters how their votes compare in their own state in a nationwide election.

South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes with a population of 884,000. That's 1 EC vote per 294,000 citizens.

California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of 39.5 million.
That's 1 EC vote per 718,000 citizens.

See the problem?

I am not ignoring anyones point. In fact i have repeatedly said i understand their point.

So do you also feel like each state should have a different # of senators?

[Deleted User 310]

I see the problem.
Illy admitted earlier that he sees the problem.
But he's still valid in saying we are a collection of 50 states and the EC does a better job of gauging the general feel of the whole country rather than pockets.

I think it's flawed but I also think a simple majority is also flawed.

Thank you.

Both ways have flaws.

[twocoach]

#1) no they aren't. They pretty much control their state.

#2)We are 50 individual states. I don't know how else to explain it.


Like i said, i see both sides to the coin. I understand why you want popular vote to be the only decider.

If we're nothing more than 50 individual states then we don't need a President. Good grief.

Good grief is right. What a stupid response, even for you.

You're completely ignoring everyone's point. It doesn't matter that they are big relative to their state. It matters how their votes compare in their own state in a nationwide election.

South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes with a population of 884,000. That's 1 EC vote per 294,000 citizens.

California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of 39.5 million.
That's 1 EC vote per 718,000 citizens.

See the problem?

[twocoach]

Good grief is right. What a stupid response, even for you.

You're completely ignoring everyone's point. It doesn't matter that they are big relative to their state. It matters how their votes compare in their own state in a nationwide election.

South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes with a population of 884,000. That's 1 EC vote per 294,000 citizens.

California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of 39.5 million.
That's 1 EC vote per 718,000 citizens.

See the problem?

I am not ignoring anyones point. In fact i have repeatedly said i understand their point.

So do you also feel like each state should have a different # of senators?

Yes. It's called the House of Representatives.

[Deleted User 310]

You're completely ignoring everyone's point. It doesn't matter that they are big relative to their state. It matters how their votes compare in their own state in a nationwide election.

South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes with a population of 884,000. That's 1 EC vote per 294,000 citizens.

California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of 39.5 million.
That's 1 EC vote per 718,000 citizens.

See the problem?

I am not ignoring anyones point. In fact i have repeatedly said i understand their point.

So do you also feel like each state should have a different # of senators?

Yes. It's called the House of Representatives.

Um what?

So no senate at all?

[twocoach]

I am not ignoring anyones point. In fact i have repeatedly said i understand their point.

So do you also feel like each state should have a different # of senators?

Yes. It's called the House of Representatives.

Um what?

So no senate at all?

The Congress is fine how it is. We're talking about everyone's votes being equal. They do NOT count equally in the EC. Don't change the subject.

[pdub]

I understand they don't count equally.
It is a protection to the federation of states so that big cities don't dominate the vote.
We are a collection of 50 states - this does a better job of collecting the opinion of the whole country and not just concentrated parts of it.

It is flawed but so is a pure majority.

[Deleted User 310]

Yes. It's called the House of Representatives.

Um what?

So no senate at all?

The Congress is fine how it is. We're talking about everyone's votes being equal. They do NOT count equally in the EC. Don't change the subject.

We have 3 branches of governement.

Everyone's votes do count equally in their state. And the more populous states have more reps in the house of representatives.

There is no reason to debate this any further. You think there is only 1 correct stance on this, your stance....which unsurprisingly is how you feel about nearly every topic politically.

You are not going to convince me that there are no pros to the electoral college. Just as i am not going to convince you of the reasons why i think it makes sense.

You want even more control of our country for the handful of large cities that already control the house of representatives. I tend to not feel that way. It is not as if California and Maine get the same amount of electoral votes. The large states still get more electoral votes.

[twocoach]

Um what?

So no senate at all?

The Congress is fine how it is. We're talking about everyone's votes being equal. They do NOT count equally in the EC. Don't change the subject.

We have 3 branches of governement.

Everyone's votes do count equally in their state. And the more populous states have more reps in the house of representatives.

There is no reason to debate this any further. You think there is only 1 correct stance on this, your stance....which unsurprisingly is how you feel about nearly every topic politically.

You are not going to convince me that there are no pros to the electoral college. Just as i am not going to convince you of the reasons why i think it makes sense.

You want even more control of our country for the handful of large cities that already control the house of representatives. I tend to not feel that way. It is not as if California and Maine get the same amount of electoral votes. The large states still get more electoral votes.

There is NO "correct stance" on this, just our individual opinions. I merely shared mine. If you choose to once again sit on the fence and argue with everyone without forming an opinion of your own, that's your choice. No biggie.

Representation in Congress and voting for a President are two separate things. In my opinion, every citizen's vote in a NATIONAL election should count exactly the same as every other citizen's in the NATION, not in their state.

[zsn]

Twocoach is absolutely right. Statewide office is based on State popular vote, not the EC equivalent in the State, or by county. National office should be based on national popular vote.

The Senate is anachronistic also. It was supposed to be modeled after the House of Lords, and there was no direct election of senators until 1913. Just like the HOL is largely ceremonial it’s time to make the Senate the same.

For starters I’d like to see a law that states that if a bill passed by one chamber isn’t actually voted down by the other chamber that bill automatically advances to the President for signature/veto. Don’t be a weasel and refuse to take up bills passed by the other chamber. Take away the disproportionate power of the Speakers and Majority Leaders.