That’s a fine model to propose; it’s just not consistent with the constitution. This whole notion that the candidate that gets the most votes nationwide should be president is just bad civics that continues to be foisted off on the public by media that should know better. There is no such thing as a national presidential election. There are 50 state elections to select electors who pick the president. If we want to change that then have a proper national debate on the subject and amend the constitution.
Just theorizing that Republican states could come up with a winner take all election where the candidate that wins gets all of the votes cast and that’s what gets recorded as the official vote tally for that state. The result would be an inflated nationwide vote total for the Republican candidate.
I couldn't imagine the 30 million plus now, people in So Cal & other densely populated areas determining the government of the USA. Thats exactly what the forefathers wanted to prevent. Sure, it could be a definite political advantage to based everything on regional dense populations, thankfully its not. Cities like LA, NY, Chicago have not earned the right to represent the majority, imo.
And that’s the equally valid opposing argument. It also happens to be the one that the constitution employs. I’m not married to one or the other, but I’m for darned sure not in favor of this back door effort that blue states are trying to use to game the system by making use of the popular vote total in a nonexistent election as a means of allocating 270 electoral votes. Party of transparency my ass.
I just read this Harvard Law Review blog discussing problems with the NPVR. You might want to give it a look: https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/the-danger-of-the-national-popular-vote-compact/
Yes. I agree with you that that is the actual justification. Not that small states have 'needs', but that the constitution was a compromise which involved giving more power to less populated states. The question before us is, is a political compromise that was made 200+ years ago still a good way to run things today, or should we change it? Have you seen a lot of pandering to Oregon in presidential elections? I haven't. It's pretty rare that a nominee even comes here once. What exactly have prior presidents done for Oregon that you think would have been lost if we had one-person, one-vote? On occasion perhaps, but overall it is not the case. Small states pay less in taxes than the federal government spends on them; large states pay more than they receive back. It's large states that are getting screwed, they are subsidizing the rural states. Currently we pillage large states to give to the small ones. Why is that a system that must be preserved? barfo
Its not, I am just saying I dont “mind” the electoral college and I see why it was put in place. If we want to go with a national popular vote, well ok we can argue its merit. I am just saying theres an discussion to be had. There are issues with both systems and as with everything it wont be perfect for everyone. Also in terms of Oregon, look at how active some of representatives are, Wyden and others are in committee’s that make laws for everyone. If we devalue states, Im saying the danger is smaller states will not get proper representation and wont really be allowed at the table, or it at least could play out that way.
I'd say the solution is obvious: Scrap the entire system. This nation needs a pirate to lead us in these dark times. With the requisite supply of rum and supermodels, of course.
Thanks. I tend to agree with his conclusions. The NPVC in my view is just a way to start the discussion, not the solution itself. barfo
We'd still have Wyden. The electoral college affects only the president, has nothing to do with electing congresspeople. barfo
We would still have Wyden, but I'm saying the danger of losing the electoral college is the federal government would stop inviting guys like Wyden to the table to participate. Why would they some dude from a state with very little voice is just a waste of their time while all the committee's get filled with representatives from larger cities? There is a cause and effect, the electoral college grants state like Oregon a voice nationally that they may otherwise not have. The first step takes away the electoral college eventually you take away the number of congresspeople they have, because hey why in the world does Oregon need people in congress they aren't important, let's just fill it all up with the people from NY, and LA. There's a ripple effect that COULD happen.
Sure, it's a slippery slope, and we know how dangerous those can be. If you allow gays to marry, then pretty soon a man can marry a goat. barfo
Unfortunately, the Electoral Vote (a fine idea for the 18 century but an idea that does not really make sense in a world where we can talk to millions of people across the world within seconds of trying to provide our answer) is discrimination against people based on their geographic location. A questionable idea for a country that was founded on the idea that all people are created equal. Basically you are against the equal rights of people because they choose to live in a populated area.
Let's extrapolate this a bit. Does a country make sense? I can talk to someone in Germany today, so why should our governments be different should my voice be any less meaningful to the government there? Then what we just have one huge government, where the majority rules, and if you don't share the same values, or have different needs, it simply doesn't matter. Geography does create different needs for people, like Farms, Mountains, Forested Area, Cities, they all have different things that are vital to their day to day to lives. Isn't it just as much discrimination if the only places that matter are those who live in big cities? If you don't fit into the mold of what the government officials deem necessary for their own gain then you have no place in society? There's an argument to be made for all of that and I get it, but there are also dangers to it, just like any form of government.
