If you accept that argument (yours, I mean), basically that places matter more than people, then Oregon doesn't make sense as a state, and needs to be split up. The land of Harney County deserves self rule just as much the land of Wyoming, doesn't it? So maybe we should split Oregon up into 36 separate states along county lines. I think every county would like to have the freedom to do what it wants. But then you've still got a problem, because east Multnomah is nothing like the west, so you really need smaller divisions. And I don't like my next door neighbor, so I should have a separate government than him. And the wife and I don't always agree, so probably she needs her own state. Are children states? What about the unborn, are they sovereigns? barfo
Not really. You can live wherever one likes big dense city or rural Montana. Each get a percentage of representation for electoral college. Where you want to only regions with great populations to control the vote for president.
So, you believe that farmers are worth more than nurses in a big city? Or that someone that drills oil in Alaska is worth more than a Doctor in NYC? The argument is very simple, if we strive to treat every one as equal - the choice of location to live should not be one that effects the weight of their vote. Simple as that. Anything else is just words that hide discrimination (in this case, geographic discrimination).
The flaw with your argument is that Each one does get the same percentage of the representation of the electoral vote. A Vote in Wyoming impacts 3 times as much of the electoral vote as a vote in California does. The argument that only regions with great population control the vote to president is wrong - About 42% of the California voting population voted for Trump - so with a popular vote it is not as if all the votes in California continue to go to the Democrats and they gain from other places. (And likewise, 43% of Texas voted Democrat). My opinion is that the Electoral vote is discriminatory and outdated - and frankly, I do not like the fact that as someone who lives in California - my vote is worth less. It is bad enough that for every $1 I pay in federal taxes less than a $1 comes back to California in Federal aid, and likewise people in Alaska would get more than $1 in federal aid for every $1 they pay in federal tax. It is a classic case of taxation without representation. Ironic that the people that talk about traditional values and what the founders set are the ones that oppose this.
The flaw in your logic is that you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for politicians to decide that since only the population centers matter that they can discriminate against lower populated areas. I'm saying that they should all have a voice, and the problem with the popular vote is that eventually, it could turn into well no one matters but those in large cities. That is also discrimination.
I'm not saying that one way is better than the other, just that both ways can have unintended long term consequences. You said it's your opinion that it was fine 200 years ago, well wasn't it discrimination then too by your definition of it, it's not like 2019 came and everything's different now. Just a.) I don't mind the electoral college "that much", even though as an Oregonian my vote doesn't matter, I understand that my vote isn't really for the president, my vote goes to what the state will vote for. b) I don't think a national popular vote is going to all of a sudden make it all better, people will still be pissed when their candidate doesn't win.
If everyone gets the same vote - how is it discrimination? People should always vote based on what they care for - and their vote should count the same. The issues that get more votes are the ones that matter to more people and therefore the ones that should be a policy priority. If more people decide that they like the color red over the color blue is that discrimination? This is an absurd idea. You are basically aggregating all people in rural areas as one - where the popular vote shows that this is not the case - Alaska is not all Republican just as California is not all Democrat. The idea that someone that lives in a rural area is more important than someone that lives in an urban area is the same as the idea that someone that people that wear skirts are worth less than people that wear pants. It's absurd. The popular vote fixes it very simply - everyone's vote is worth exactly the same.
I said I understand why this was done to appease the smaller states in the 18 century - where their issues were not easily understood and communicated to other parts of the country. This is no longer the case. If there is a mass murder in Texas people in NY are upset about it - and when Hawaii was bombed in WW2 the people of Chicago did not shrug their shoulders. The electoral vote was a way to solve a problem that is no longer relevant, it was meant to ensure that we level the field - unfortunately, when the cause is no longer relevant - it leads to tilt the influence in the opposite direction. It does the opposite of what it was supposed to do.
Just curious, how many folks in the urban areas of California do you suppose know anything about, or care about, farm problems of Midwest farmers?
I believe the concerns are still relevant, just because means of communication have gotten better doesn't mean that communication itself is better. There are just new ways for us to communicate how much we piss each other off (the general us not you and I specifically). I get that the Popular vote may be fine, but I don't agree with you that it's some simple solution everyone will be happy. Fact is it'll be about the same number of people who are pissed off at election outcomes.
How many of the 42% of the vote in Iowa that voted Democrat do you think do not know it? I can also flip the question on you - how many of the farmers in Wyoming whose vote is worth 3 times as much as the electoral vote of the voter in California know about the issues of the Urban dwellers in California (or NYC or Chicago).
I am sure not everyone will be happy. It is never the case. I just think it makes more sense to not have the majority unhappy. That's the basic idea of democracy - if there is a union that is not a tyranny - it is the vote of the majority that should decide. Once you say no to it (which the Electoral vote has multiple times in recent elections) - it is a problem.
As I said above, I'm not totally averse to a popular vote for the office of president, but that is not what the constitution currently provides for as the process to elect a president. I think that there are valid arguments to be made in favor and against both the current system and a popular vote. There may be some sort of compromise position that makes sense. My only serious point on the topic is that if we're going to propose a change to how we elect the president, it should be publicly debated in a thorough manner and the process of amending the constitution should be followed precisely. This current end around that blue states are attempting to pull through the NPVC is certain to do nothing but cause future problems.
The trick with the current system is that you have to blow them out...can't be a buzzer beater election. We need candidates people actually want to vote for again. I think Trump will get blown out next time even with the electoral system.
My fear is that when trump loses he/his followers/cult will say it was rigged and create complete and utter chaos.
