The thing is, you're looking at "fair" being whatever the most people want. The Founders thought "fair" meant ensuring that the interests of independent states were evenly represented. You may be right that that viewpoint doesn't make as much sense today, but it will take a whole lot of political pressure to change it. Given that a pure popular vote would generally be seen as being advantageous to the more populous coastal regions of the country, I don't see middle-America being keen to change things. And given that in today's political climate it would largely be seen as favoring Democrat candidates, you can bet Republican states aren't going to back a change. Bottom line, I think we're stuck with what we have. If you don't think your vote is being "fairly" counted in California, you're always welcome to vote with your feet.
And that's exactly where the discrimination comes from. It is telling me - if you want to be treated equally - go live somewhere else. A sad state of affairs for the land of the free where all men are created equal.
Why do you hate the founding fathers so much? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
You can console yourself to a degree, California has only the 39th worst net distribution of federal taxes paid vs federal dollars returned to the state. Much of the middle part of America gets screwed worse. We in the Great Northwest thank you for your support. https://www.moneytips.com/is-your-state-a-net-payer-or-a-net-taker/356
By today's standards, they were sexist, racist, elitist pigs who just happened to invent a pretty good model of government. Except for those damned Electoral College, women's vote and slavery issues, of course.
I agree. They had good ideas and it was mostly appropriate for the time. Unfortunately, parts of it did not age well and we are doing a disservice to their efforts by not fixing what they got wrong. “Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . . ” - Thomas Jefferson.
Why should it necessarily be one person one vote? We're the United States, maybe it should just be one state, one vote. Just because one state has more people doesn't make it more important. Or going the other direction, if more populated states are in fact more important than the less populated ones, why do we say that each voter should carry equal weight? Sure all [people] are created equal, but do they really remain that way? Why do people--for example--who don't contribute financially to the budget get a say in how it's spent? Any method of vote weighting is in some way arbitrary.
"Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof" Get 'er done! (And good luck with that)
That's my "devil's advocate" font. I don't necessarily agree with anything I just typed, but I think it's an interesting discussion point.
As I said, I do not believe it will happen anytime soon. Thanks Platy. I will PM you my address. When do you think my check will be here?
I don’t think the electoral college is perfect by any means, but people with less representation need to be heard. You are kind of claiming a victims stance by saying you are discriminated against because your vote is worth less, when in reality you are part of a powerful constituency that possesses more power than many states combined. Assuming we were a one world government, would people in China have more of a right to say what’s best for the rest of the world, because there are more people there? Are the best interests of China the same as those in Greenland or Australia? That may be a generalized example but the United States is not a small place and there are vastly different wants and needs across the landscape.
I do not want to be defined by the state or geographical location I choose to reside in. I want to have the same weight for my vote as anyone else in the country. Simple as that. The same is true for my Republican neighbor or the Democrat that might live across the street from you. The reality is that your vote is worth more than mine. That's not right, just as I would not want my vote to be worth more than your vote - when we vote on country-wide leadership. I have no vote in the governor race to your state and I will continue not to have it (local). But when we discuss national matters because we are part of the union - our vote should be the worth the same. I do not think that pointing the actual truth of the matter means that I am playing a victim card. My vote is under-represented compared to yours. It's a fact.
We need a National Initiative (nationwide ballot measures) more than we need to eliminate the Electoral College.
