I fail to see how that map makes it necessary? In a popular vote system that swath of red area and the smaller areas of blue all cast the same vote with the same equality.
In the current system Wyoming a large area state has three electoral votes even though a minute amount of people reside there. The electoral college is outdated and flawed. Are people in Wyoming more important than the rest of the nation? Because their votes hold more weight than others.
They have the same amount of Senate representatives than states who absolutely dwarf their population.
I’d agree with this. I also think that if they were allowed in the debates they would win in a landslide. They don’t tend to participate in the mudslinging that it devolves into and would earn a lot of respect for that. Most people I know and consider sensible think along the lines of Libertarian policy, they’re just either uninformed or are horrified of “wasting” their vote.
I’m aware of this. I’m saying it’s an unfair system. Do you think if everyone moved out of Wyoming except one person that person should have three electoral votes?
The senate representatives although flawed bothers me less than popular vote. IMO no current strong arguments exist to keep the electoral college unless we just want to say we would like to keep it to where someone can have millions of people less vote for them and still winZ
They shouldn’t. I think granting people equal voting power is the fairest. Under that system the GoP would have lost in 2016, and in 2000, but that would have represented the will of the people. Instead we have some people with more power to their votes through the electoral college, and end up with winners that a majority don’t want.
No its pretty much genius. Especially considering it was devised at time when the country’s leadership had no idea of the future growth of the country. Remember, these are the same geniuses that created the system of “check and balances” so that no one arm of government could control the country.
You do realize we have changed a lot of things from that time correct? You’re not making an argument for it you’re just saying it was cool back then so let’s keep it.
It’s flawed and outdated and certain voters have more weight. If you think it’s fair that certain voters have more power because they live in states with less population we can just agree to disagree.
That’s because you’re confused and seem to think land size is the will of the people. You aren’t concerned with where people live. You are concerned with the size of the states where people live.
I think you guys are just wasting your time… Your new Toddler-King-for-Life isn’t going anywhere; you’re stuck with (or get to enjoy, I guess…) him until he dies. And then, one of his kids or one of his smarter sycophant will take over.
But as sham elections go, you’re having a pretty nice one. The TV ratings will be pleasing to your dear leader.
That’s fine. It’s just a system where votes are weighted differently and millions of more people can vote for you and I can still beat you.
Most people would think the will of the people is what the majority thinks. It’s pretty much how we do every other election and makes the most sense. Agree to disagree if you think electing someone with less people supporting is the will of the people.
At your work if the boss said we need to make an important decision let’s take a vote and 6 people voted for A and 4 voted for B and he said it looks like the B’s have it would you consider that the will of the room?
To me, this feels like those in the “empty lands” are being told, you people don’t matter as much, you are all stupid rednecks anyway, just let us tell you what you need to do.
In the current system those people are being told you matter more because you live in areas where less people live. Does that make sense? In a popular vote that guy in Idaho has the exact same power as the guy in New York. 100% equal. In the current system if you live in New York it’s less.
You’re telling me things I already know and you’re really not making arguments about why the current system makes sense.
Do you think if one person lived in each of the 25 lowest populated states that it would be the will of the people and fair representation to the country to elect Presidents the same way?