Order In The Court? Hardly, As Democrats Vow Revenge For Barrett Confirmation.

Except that’s how it works now! Nobody comes to campaign in CA or New York, they get completely ignored. Same goes for Mississippi or Alabama

 

https://www.ksat.com/news/politics/...utweigh-the-other-on-any-given-election-year/

Why should a state with a larger population get to over ride a state with a much smaller one? Agriculture states that are not as densely popluated would lose their voice to larger states. The popular vote would take that away from them completely.

 

That's the Real! beauty about Amy Coney Barretts confirmation, that Democrats changed the rules and enabled President Trump to nominate and get through 3 Supreme Court justices in his first 4 years

 

States don't "over ride" other states. That's a false premise. States don't vote. People do.

Why should a majority of people who live in cities lose their voice to a couple farmers? The EC takes that away from them. In 1790, the most populous states were the agricultural states, so that reasoning is surely not from the Framers.

It's a simple matter of one nation, one office, one vote. When we elect a governor here, we don't give the rural counties a disproportionate "voice." I see no difference holding the presidential election the same way.

 

That's because California and New York are so heavily democrat it doesn't matter of someone campaigns there or not. They are not swing states. It is at at least a 95% chance they will vote democrat almost every time. Why would democrats campaign somewhere they already have the votes locked in? And why would republicans campaign where they are almost assuredly not going to win?

When it comes to campaigning, you go where it is most uncertain. If a state seens undecided then that's the one you focus on. That's just strategy. But campaigning is a different matter then the electoral college. The EC is to make sure that at the end of the day, Hawaii's votes count as much as Texas.

 

You know what I mean when I say states vote. Why should somewhere smaller lose their voice to a much larger state? The way it's set up is so if you have 100 people living in your state of New Widget and I have 5,000 people living in the state of Grand Slopids, our voice is still equal instead of me getting to shout you down. Otherwise their's no reason for New Widget to even remain a part of the union if their voice is not going to be counted.

 

Except Hawaiian votes don’t count as much as Texas. A vote in DC or Wyoming carries more electoral college power than a vote in Florida. A lot more.

 

What an awful thing to say. People who don't want to live exactly the way you do, are not your enemy. We have a great country with climates/environments to suit every taste. Why do you feel the need to denigrate millions and millions of Americans?

 

I’m just basing it on how many people live there. If they were great they wouldn’t have so few residents.

 

Wyoming has 3 votes; Texas has 38.

38 is more than 3.

 

Because "somewhere" is land. People vote, not land. I have a third acre, my neighbor has a half acre. What you're telling me is that my vote counts more than my neighbor's because I own less land. Makes no sense.

States don't vote, and even if they did, they don't vote against each other. We're talking about electing a president who serves the entire country. People choose from two candidates. Where they live is irrelevant.

 

Wyoming ~600,000 pop. 200,000 per EV

Texas ~30,000,000 790,000 per EV

One vote in Wyoming carries as much weight as four votes in Texas, theoretically.

 

It's about 20% of the population that lives in rural areas. There's less room because they need it for the animals we eat. My sister lives in a town with 2,500 people. Is she less American than you? Is she less worthy of the American experience? Who are you to tell her she's less anything?

 

States do vote. That's how it works. You have no right to vote for president. You get that because your state decided that asking your opinion is a good way to decide how the state should vote.

 

Citizens of Iowa are just as important as citizens of NY.

you want to override the voice of the people of Iowa and that’s tragic

 

What does the size of one's town have to do with her choice for president? I don't care how small her town is, you're going to find people voting for both candidates. Not only does the EC reduce the power in populous states, it does so to your neighbors who disagree with you. Somehow, your argument didn't hold true for them.

Why do farm animals take priority over people?

She needs her vote to be weighted in order to feel equal? That's contradictory.

 

States vote for president. No person in the United States has ever cast a vote for the president. You have no right to vote for president. Your state allows you to tell them your preference. That's all.

ETA: Mellow Guy is disparaging people who live in small towns - that's what that was about.

 

um states that are more populated have more EC votes. So their population is represented

 

The Republicans have made cheating a minor offense in comparison to what they have done. The many wrongs MUST be righted, and that will require removal of Kavanaugh and Barrett or packing the court with balanced, sane, non-partisan judges. Which would you prefer? ... --not that I give a damn what you think.

 

If/when we sweep (House, Senate, Presidency)...

EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE!!!

Sooner or later filthy republicans will PAY DEARLY for their disgraceful ram-job of that hard-right koch-puppet onto the high court...

 

That's what's on the books. The question is whether we've outgrown the EC method. I'm not completely opposed to the EC.

What concerns me is that the loser of the PV has won the EC twice in this century. It had happened only three times in our previous two and a quarter centuries.

I'll submit that the EC may be useful in extreme circumstances, where state by state politics may be relevant on a national level. These would be extremely rare, as evidenced by our history prior to 2000. Once per hundred years sounds about right. Once per decade says something is askew.

Eliminating the EC would force candidates to address the entire nation, not a small group of swing states. There would be no swing states. Less drama.

(Granted, Hayes and Harrison accomplished this within 12 years of each other, but 1888 had been the last time the winner lost the popular vote.)

 

But it takes far less voters in Wyoming to get one vote. Texas would have more than 38 if it was fairly distributed, or Wyoming would have fewer

 

Not at all, it’s you who thinks states with lots of people are less, that's why those votes count less.

 

Eliminating the EC would require getting agreement from 34 states. Since there are more than 16 states who appreciate the EC, it won't ever happen. The EC isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. We have to work with the system we have. Complaining about what it isn't doesn't do a thing, unless there is a real chance for change.

There might be 10 states who want this change, and that should tell us everything we need to know. We are the United States, with States being the key word.

 

Oh, it wasn't you who said: A system that rewards states for being ****** places to live ?

Hm. My bad.