Alternative To The Electoral College

[Winco]

There are over 3000 counties!

So.
2,000 of which are considered SMALL.

 

[rightwinger]

When voting for President, why should the vote of city residents count less than rural residents ?

 

[WorldWatcher]

When voting for President, why should the vote of city residents count less than rural residents ?

Because they are city residents and not rural residents.

Duh...

WW

 

[task0778]

When voting for President, why should the vote of city residents count less than rural residents ?

If the US went to a national popular vote to elect a president then the vote of rural resident would count less than a city resident, cuz they'd be outnumbered.

 

[pknopp]

Better than the minority rule you get with a 40 percent filibuster.
Senate should be a simple majority
House should be a simple majority
The President signs

You have to have all three to pass legislation
Better than having 40 percent of one leg to block legislation

I have no issue with a filibuster if it's done the way it was originally intended to work. Someone speaks until the other side gets tired of listening to them.

 

[braalian]

The electoral college is the only fair system.

How so? What could possibly be more fair than one person, one vote?

 

[rightwinger]

If the US went to a national popular vote to elect a president then the vote of rural resident would count less than a city resident, cuz they'd be outnumbered.

Each would count as ONE vote

Right now, rural residents vote counts for more

 

[Foxfyre]

Lefties are always criticizing how we vote for president with the electoral college so I have two alternate ideas:

1. We've got 50 states and a small handful of territories so we give them all one vote each based on the popular votes in those areas.

2. We've got 3,244 counties in the country so we give each county one vote each plus that small handful of territories and they all get one vote each based on popular votes in those areas

Interesting concept but Democrats wouldn't go for that. More than half the U.S. population live in just 5% of the counties. Biden won 509 counties in 2020 to Trump's 2,547 counties. But the huge population areas are where the huge majority of the welfare recipients and others dependent on government money live so they almost always vote Democrat. And Republicans almost always win many more states than do Democrats. Most of the most heavily populated states again have the most people dependent on government and vote Democrat.

So the Democrats would love to have a system based on popular vote that they could pretty well manipulate to ensure Democrat victories and ability to ensure those victories in perpetuity. The EC is the only defense we have to ensure that mob rule does not become totalitarianism and even that is shaky these days.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no issue with a filibuster if it's done the way it was originally intended to work. Someone speaks until the other side gets tired of listening to them.

Filibuster used to be a rare occurrence
Now it applies to every vote

 

[Captain Caveman]

Lefties are always criticizing how we vote for president with the electoral college so I have two alternate ideas:

1. We've got 50 states and a small handful of territories so we give them all one vote each based on the popular votes in those areas.

2. We've got 3,244 counties in the country so we give each county one vote each plus that small handful of territories and they all get one vote each based on popular votes in those areas

How about, going back to more of a Republic.

 

[Blaster]

What could possibly be more fair than one person, one vote?

We already have that except for the illegal ballots.

 

[rightwinger]

But the huge population areas are where the huge majority of the welfare recipients and others dependent on government money live so they almost always vote Democrat

Not true

Rural areas have always gotten more government aid than their population and tax base warrants.

Based on population and taxes paid, you can’t justify most of the infrastructure and services that rural communities receive.

 

[pknopp]

Not true

Rural areas have always gotten more government aid than their population and tax base warrants.

It's what is known as a society. In a society not everything has to be 100% fair in this regard. Just because there is less people they still need bridges and infrastructure.

It's not even than simple. Others that don't live there also use it.

Based on population and taxes paid, you can’t justify most of the infrastructure and services that rural communities receive.

I just did.

 

[braalian]

We already have that except for the illegal ballots.

No, we don’t

Do you not understand what the electoral college is?

 

[rightwinger]

It's what is known as a society. In a society not everything has to be 100% fair in this regard. Just because there is less people they still need bridges and infrastructure.

It's not even than simple. Others that don't live there also use it.




I just did.

Which is why we provide bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, water, electricity to lowly populated areas.

But those residents point to city residents on welfare and complain while ignoring the services they receive that their tax base does not warrant

 

[Blaster]

No, we don’t

Do you not understand what the electoral college is?

I have a better understanding of it than you do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not true

Rural areas have always gotten more government aid than their population and tax base warrants.

Based on population and taxes paid, you can’t justify most of the infrastructure and services that rural communities receive.

100% of 100 people involves 100 people.
1% of one million people involves 10,000 people.

But then math hasn't generally been the strong suit of radical leftists has it?

 

[pknopp]

Which is why we provide bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, water, electricity to lowly populated areas.

But those residents point to city residents on welfare and complain while ignoring the services they receive that their tax base does not warrant

You are creating a vast generalization to defend more vast generalizations.

 

[braalian]

I have a better understanding of it than you do.

So then you understand that it’s not the same as the popular vote, which is literally one person-one vote

 

[Blaster]

So then you understand that it’s not the same as the popular vote, which is literally one person-one vote

It is much more fair than the popular vote.