Last night we had another democrat debate with no American flag on stage.

right now small states dominate large states. Every vote should count equally in a national election, like the presidency.

 

If it was by popular vote, the presidents would not campaign in my state or make any campaign promises because it gets him more votes to make all those promises in big states. I don't want my state to just become a small California. My vote counts more than your vote, but your state counts more than my state.

There is no completely fair way. You should take the time to recognize that fact rather than just discounting the argument because my vote counts more than yours.

 

They do not. How many "small states" does it require to equal the EC voting power of California? Or Texas? Or Florida?

The President Of The UNITED STATES of America, it's right in the name......

States matter.

 

it's 2020. candidates don't need to campaign anywhere. Every person has near unlimited access to every candidate and their platforms.

no it doesn't. as I keep pointing out, WY vote carries 3 times the weight of CA vote.

1 person 1 vote. 100% fair.
.

why would I recognize something that isn't true?

 

they quite demonstrably do. a vote in WY carries 3 times the weight of CA.

people matter. states are where people reside.

 

I have access. However, they will not make the same promises to a small group of voters as to a large group of voters.

Neither method is completely fair. Without this protection, large states would dominate.
What is untrue? Do you think a small state citizen would get the same consideration as a large state citizen? There would be zero motivation for the president to do so.

 

why do you base your vote on promises? No politician keeps their campaign promises.

no, PEOPLE would dominate.

of course there would. the president would need the majority of citizens votes to win, so he would have to appeal to the majority of citizens. The way it is now, in large blue states, republicans don't even bother to vote, as their vote is meaningless. Same thing in small red states. Democrats often stay home and don't vote, as their vote is meaningless.

 

Why would they give any consideration to a small state? We would have no voting power. Ten million votes counts a lot more than a million.

Why would anyone bother voting for the same reason? When you get right down to it, there is almost zero chance that our vote is going to change anything, but we vote anyway. We have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than our vote actually swinging the election regardless of which method is used. .

This is pointless. I understand your reasons. However, you refuse to acknowledge that there is a valid counter argument.

 

because people live there.

your voting power would be equal to every other person.

I don't follow? Of course your vote would change something, in a system where yours and my vote counted equally.

Your only counter argument is "it's working in my favor now, so I don't care how unequal it is". That isn't a valid counter argument.

 

And that ignores everything I said.

 

Your popular vote concept would render the lower population states meaningless in the election and thus their interest would not be represented equally. Why would a state want to be in a union where they were not represented fairly? Your concept would either break apart the union or render states as nothing more than meaningless lines on a map. No thanks.

 

I've already shown this to not be the case.

we AREN'T represented fairly in the current system.

my concept is one shared by virtually every other first world nation on earth. It would not break the union. It would make elections fair and equal. You are against this because you currently benefit, to others detriment, from the current system.

 

by directly addressing everything you said? I don't follow.

 

You have not.

It's to ensure the states are represented equally. It's not about you or me..

We are not "every other first world nation on earth" not should be try to be. What we have seems to be working pretty well.
It would not make elections fair, it would favor the people in large population states such as Tejas where I live. I do not favor it because I believe the states are vastly important and should not be undermined so a bunch of whinny losers on the coast can counter that importance.

It's not really an issue as it is not going to change. I'm sure in Nov if Trump wins both the popular and the EC you will come up with some other nonsense to try and subvert the system.

 

of course I have.

They aren't represented equally, as I keep pointing out.

clearly not, as it has led to 2 out of 3 presents this century elected to office when the people soundly rejected them.

1 voter, 1 vote. that is 100% fair.

states are not important. people are.

it's a major issue, and will change in the next decade or 2. If you ever manage to win the popular vote again, and then lose the actual election you will start clamoring to change it. Just like trump wanted to change it.

I don't care who the candidate is. I would be saying the same thing I am now if Clinton had won the EC vote but lost the popular vote to trump.

 

You saying you "proved it" does not mean you proved it.

This is not your 4th grade student council election, 1 vote is 1 vote is not how it works or should work. It's "fair" to the states as is, I do not really care if you think it's fair to you because it is not about that. But your silly comment about states not being important shows your lack of understanding about our govt. And clearly shows you have no concern what happens to statehood under your misguided ideology.

The state of "_________" matters more than the vote of "Mr/Misses ___________" in a POTUS election, It's just that simple.

It will not change in the next 2 decades. The 40 lower population states are going to neuter themselves willing so the other 10 have more influence? You really believe that?

 

That statement which you made ignores everything I said. You claimed that was my only argument which is not true. I never once used that argument.

 

it's not how it currently works but is how it should work. I do not believe in affirmative action at any level. Lease of all when voting for the most important position in the country.

 

It does not ignore anything you said. You like the EC, because it currently favors you and gives you an advantage in presidential elections.

 

You said "Your only counter argument is "it's working in my favor now, so I don't care how unequal it is". That statement is simply not true.

 

of course it is

 

Show me where I said that.

 

Yup, what the he'll does the US flag have to do with electing a president?

 

absolutely nothing