It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

[martybegan]

The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.

That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.

OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.

That's ONE power they gave the states. Overall the federal government rules.

But its only supposed to rule on items specifically given to them as proscribed powers and responsibilities.

Not "everything under the sun because "commerce clause, fuh fuh fuh, promote general welfare, fuh fuh"

Even if you as a conservative will only concede that the federal government powers are to secure our rights then you would have to concede that securing the rights of the voters to a fair election process would be a legitimate power of the federal government.

Only according to the powers given to it, and only to protect the rights enumerated to the people.

 

[jillian]

This is from 2015 but it's a great article. Under our present winner-take-all system, lots of voters know their vote doesn't matter.

It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

feb 3 2015 The custom in the United States today is for Electoral College (EC) votes to be awarded state-by-state on a winner-take-all basis. A candidate who wins the popular vote in an individual state gets every one of its electoral votes.

Although we are accustomed to thinking this is the only way it can be done, the method of awarding electoral votes is a matter for each state to decide. For example, two states (Nebraska and Maine) award electoral college votes by congressional district rather than by statewide popular vote. There is no reason for every other state in the nation not to follow suit.

Voters outside major population centers today are virtually disenfranchised by the current arrangement. Voters in eastern Washington, for instance, know full well that the outcome of the electoral college vote will be determined by the vote in the major population centers of Seattle and King County. They know their vote, while it will be counted, is largely symbolic.

But if EC votes are awarded by congressional district, suddenly voters in eastern Washington, whose districts lie wholly outside the state’s urban centers, have a voice and a vote that counts.

In California, Romney would have won 13 of the state’s 55 electoral votes, which is certainly better than a shutout and has the additional and more important advantage of letting voters in those 13 congressional districts know that their vote matters as much as the vote of folks in San Francisco and L.A. Romney would have won three of New York’s 29 electoral votes, six out of Illinois’ 20, and 13 out of Florida’s 29.

most people think it's time to get rid of the electoral college totally.

but thanks for the partisan garbage. no doubt you'd love the presidency to be as gerrymandered as the house races are.

 

[jillian]

The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.

That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.

OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.

That's ONE power they gave the states. Overall the federal government rules.

But its only supposed to rule on items specifically given to them as proscribed powers and responsibilities.

Not "everything under the sun because "commerce clause, fuh fuh fuh, promote general welfare, fuh fuh"

Even if you as a conservative will only concede that the federal government powers are to secure our rights then you would have to concede that securing the rights of the voters to a fair election process would be a legitimate power of the federal government.

Only according to the powers given to it, and only to protect the rights enumerated to the people.

no. see, this is the problem with states' righters.... you have this blind eye for the fact that we no longer live under the articles of confederation.

 

[martybegan]

That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.

OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.

That's ONE power they gave the states. Overall the federal government rules.

But its only supposed to rule on items specifically given to them as proscribed powers and responsibilities.

Not "everything under the sun because "commerce clause, fuh fuh fuh, promote general welfare, fuh fuh"

Even if you as a conservative will only concede that the federal government powers are to secure our rights then you would have to concede that securing the rights of the voters to a fair election process would be a legitimate power of the federal government.

Only according to the powers given to it, and only to protect the rights enumerated to the people.

no. see, this is the problem with states' righters.... you have this blind eye for the fact that we no longer live under the articles of confederation.

+1 for the nice historical reference, -5 for thinking and implying I don't know about the constitution.

It's you living document people that don't get it. But you like easy victories that don't require you to actually convince the people you want to control, so you go the 5 of 9 unelected lawyers/oligarchy route.

 

[rightwinger]

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

NPV is a stupid idea and fucks over smaller States. Candidates would only campaign in urban areas and promise most federal spending goes to the urban area. This is a liberal trick to have power for eternity.

Right now, candidates only campaign in swing states....how is that different?

They primary in every state and any other state during the general until the state is locked down. It only makes sense to concentrate on the swing states after that.

So what is different in concentrating on urban areas?

The difference is that every vote gained matters if the popular vote is in play. Gaining ten votes in urban arias is the same as gaining ten in rural areas. What matters is the number of receptive voters in that particular area rather than exclusively focusing on population density. I would bet that you would see more republican campaigning in urban areas and more democrat campaigning in rural ones.

With the system as we have it now, campaigning in non-battleground states gains you nothing at all. Not one single vote even if you sway thousands to vote for you.

I agree

It should be one man/one vote

Why should a vote in Wyoming have almost four times the power of a vote in California?

 

[TooTall]

States are already free to adopt this method of apportioning electoral votes (e.g., Maine and Nebraska).

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts
Nationwide, there are now only 10 "battleground" districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President


After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the only state in the past century that has split its electoral votes between presidential candidates from two different parties,
Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, andthe leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

A national popular vote guarantees that candidates would only campaign in the most populous states and ignore the rest.

 

[TooTall]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

That is easy if you realize we are a Republic.

 

[rightwinger]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

That is easy if you realize we are a Republic.

It can happen in a Republic but it impacts the legitimacy of the leader

 

[rightwinger]

States are already free to adopt this method of apportioning electoral votes (e.g., Maine and Nebraska).

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts
Nationwide, there are now only 10 "battleground" districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President


After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the only state in the past century that has split its electoral votes between presidential candidates from two different parties,
Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, andthe leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

A national popular vote guarantees that candidates would only campaign in the most populous states and ignore the rest.

They do that now and only campaign in swing states

Popular vote would force them to consider all demographics

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

That is easy if you realize we are a Republic.

A Republic is not supposed to be led by people who won elections by losing the vote of the People.

 

[martybegan]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

That is easy if you realize we are a Republic.

A Republic is not supposed to be led by people who won elections by losing the vote of the People.

Well considering it has happened twice so far in this republic, it seems to be an occasional part of the system.

 

[TooTall]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

That is easy if you realize we are a Republic.

A Republic is not supposed to be led by people who won elections by losing the vote of the People.

A Republic goes by the Constitution that makes no mention of popular vote.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

most people think it's time to get rid of the electoral college totally.

That's because most people don't understand what the EC is. Most americans like the idea of states rights and local control of issues. The fools can't see that states rights means you have to have something like an EC.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

no. see, this is the problem with states' righters.... you have this blind eye for the fact that we no longer live under the articles of confederation.

The Articles were indeed very very pro states rights. But the Constitution that replaced it is is also pro states rights, just not as much.

 

[rightwinger]

The OP is wrong about Republican plans to award electoral votes by Congressional District

They only want to do it in Blue States and are targeting Blue States with Republican legislatures. Let the Blue States split their delegates while Red States remain all or nothing

 

[NYcarbineer]

no. see, this is the problem with states' righters.... you have this blind eye for the fact that we no longer live under the articles of confederation.

The Articles were indeed very very pro states rights. But the Constitution that replaced it is is also pro states rights, just not as much.

It was only states rights because the states wouldn't ratify it otherwise. Not because some of that shit was a good idea.

 

[FA_Q2]

Again you assert this and again I have to point out that such is NOT the case in existing battleground states. What makes you so sure that it suddenly becomes true when taken nation wide?

I'll buy into what you're saying when the candidates visit Carson City and Grand Junction multiple times in an election cycle.

Politicians visiting small rural arias in states that have major metropolitan cities in them is a fact plain and simple. You pulling 2 random places out of thin air does not change that fact.

Some examples, please. And remember, we're talking about multiple visits as they make to Chicago, Columbus, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc... My guess is that you'll now try to paint some suburb as the boonies.

The question remains - your conjecture that politicians would not visit anything but a few metropolitan areas is not based on anything more than that.

No, your statement is conjecture. Mine is rooted in fact.

Trump will be in:

Toledo Over a quarter of a million in the city alone.
Chester Twnship, PA in 1/2 million person Delaware County
Roanoke, population near 100,000.
This week according to his website.

Not exactly small town America...

I will admit that the Roanoke trip has me (and I'm sure GOP strategists) confused. He's down by 3-8 points in VA and there is nothing to indicate he's going to win it. Holding an event there makes no sense. This is how you shoot yourself in the foot. And he's announced he's going dark in VA.

Hillary has the following dates on her website (it includes her army of surrogates).

September 21, 2016 Orlando, Florida Rally Hillary Clinton
September 21, 2016 San Francisco, California Fundraiser Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Reno, Nevada Rally Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Toledo, Ohio Organizing Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Women for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Lansing, Michigan Students for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Vienna, Austria Fundraiser for American Citizens William C. Eacho
September 24, 2016 Nashua, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Manchester, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Durham, New Hampshire Organizing Event Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 25, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amy Poehler and Ana Gasteyer
September 26, 2016 Hempstead, New York Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
September 26, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Debate Watch Party Fundraiser LGBT for the Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 Austin, Texas Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 New York City, New York Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Uzo Aduba
September 26, 2016 Brookline, Massachusetts Fundraiser Boston for45
September 27, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amanda Renteria
September 28, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 28, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 30, 2016 Brooklyn, New York Fundraiser Scott M. Stringer
October 2, 2016 Atlanta, Georgia Fundraiser Senator Cory Booker
October 3, 2016 Brussels, Belgium Fundraiser for American Citizens Stephen Rapp
October 4, 2016 Farmville, Virginia Vice-Presidential Debate Tim Kaine
October 5, 2016 Washington, DC Fundraiser Hillary Clinton
October 5, 2016 London, England Fundraiser for American Citizens Melanne Verveer
October 9, 2016 St. Louis, Missouri Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 15, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Fundraiser Chicago for Hillary
October 17, 2016 Dallas, Texas Fundraiser LGBT and Allies
October 19, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 19, 2016 Newton, Massachusetts Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Jewish Community for Hillary

Large city after large city.

You simply have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

She has made several visits to areas that are not major urban settings. They are all over her calendar if you bother to look at the previous ones on her site. The list that you have posted contains events in Zanesville, Ohio (25K) and Durham, New Hampshire (15K) - hardly major cities. The particular time frame that you have pulled (the immediate future) has Hillary making almost no appearances anywhere save for the upcoming debates for obvious reasons anyway. Further, the majority of what you just posted are fundraisers and those take place in small urban settings all the time. They are also completely immaterial to the discussion - where rich people gather to buy politicians really has not bearing on the contention that said politicians will only campaign in major cities.

Only in your mind.

What is even more bizarre is that you have put fourth the argument that the EC needs to remain so that politicians DO NOT simply campaign in major cities. Then you try to post evidence that those politicians only campaign on major cities under the EC system. Your personal attack stating that I have no earthly idea what I am talking about is rather laughable considering you cant even articulate a solid point here without trying to post evidence to the contrary.

Well, as I recall, I was showing that they are already doing it; as I proved it was done (as you just admitted).

Which is it - the EC prevents politicians from campaigning only in major population centers or it does nothing to stop it? You might want to get your premise straight.

I never made such an argument that the EC allows small towns a voice. That was your bullshit and to support it, you produced 2 examples out of what...30? I would say "nice try" except it wasn't really. Try to be smarter next time (fat chance).

What I have stated is that the EC is necessary to give small states a voice. Otherwise, nobody would spend a dime in Iowa during the General election. The advent of having the popular vote plurality is necessary to keep confidence in the system and ensure that the electors are not able to install someone contrary to the will of the voters.

Now don't make me correct you again.

You have not corrected me yet. All you have done is show that you are unable to articulate a position and completely unable to have a civil discussion. I do not know why I keep trying to engage you in one, you never seem to have had the ability before. Go on and keep your doublethink, I no longer have the patience for dealing with it.

 

[candycorn]

I'll buy into what you're saying when the candidates visit Carson City and Grand Junction multiple times in an election cycle.

Politicians visiting small rural arias in states that have major metropolitan cities in them is a fact plain and simple. You pulling 2 random places out of thin air does not change that fact.

Some examples, please. And remember, we're talking about multiple visits as they make to Chicago, Columbus, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc... My guess is that you'll now try to paint some suburb as the boonies.

The question remains - your conjecture that politicians would not visit anything but a few metropolitan areas is not based on anything more than that.

No, your statement is conjecture. Mine is rooted in fact.

Trump will be in:

Toledo Over a quarter of a million in the city alone.
Chester Twnship, PA in 1/2 million person Delaware County
Roanoke, population near 100,000.
This week according to his website.

Not exactly small town America...

I will admit that the Roanoke trip has me (and I'm sure GOP strategists) confused. He's down by 3-8 points in VA and there is nothing to indicate he's going to win it. Holding an event there makes no sense. This is how you shoot yourself in the foot. And he's announced he's going dark in VA.

Hillary has the following dates on her website (it includes her army of surrogates).

September 21, 2016 Orlando, Florida Rally Hillary Clinton
September 21, 2016 San Francisco, California Fundraiser Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Reno, Nevada Rally Tim Kaine
September 22, 2016 Toledo, Ohio Organizing Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Grand Rapids, Michigan Women for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Lansing, Michigan Students for Hillary Event Chelsea Clinton
September 22, 2016 Vienna, Austria Fundraiser for American Citizens William C. Eacho
September 24, 2016 Nashua, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Manchester, New Hampshire Canvass Launch Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 24, 2016 Durham, New Hampshire Organizing Event Senator Elizabeth Warren
September 25, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amy Poehler and Ana Gasteyer
September 26, 2016 Hempstead, New York Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
September 26, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Debate Watch Party Fundraiser LGBT for the Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 Austin, Texas Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Hillary Victory Fund
September 26, 2016 New York City, New York Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Uzo Aduba
September 26, 2016 Brookline, Massachusetts Fundraiser Boston for45
September 27, 2016 New York City, New York Fundraiser Amanda Renteria
September 28, 2016 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 28, 2016 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rally First Lady Michelle Obama
September 30, 2016 Brooklyn, New York Fundraiser Scott M. Stringer
October 2, 2016 Atlanta, Georgia Fundraiser Senator Cory Booker
October 3, 2016 Brussels, Belgium Fundraiser for American Citizens Stephen Rapp
October 4, 2016 Farmville, Virginia Vice-Presidential Debate Tim Kaine
October 5, 2016 Washington, DC Fundraiser Hillary Clinton
October 5, 2016 London, England Fundraiser for American Citizens Melanne Verveer
October 9, 2016 St. Louis, Missouri Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 15, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Fundraiser Chicago for Hillary
October 17, 2016 Dallas, Texas Fundraiser LGBT and Allies
October 19, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 19, 2016 Newton, Massachusetts Debate Watch Party Fundraiser Jewish Community for Hillary

Large city after large city.

You simply have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

She has made several visits to areas that are not major urban settings. They are all over her calendar if you bother to look at the previous ones on her site. The list that you have posted contains events in Zanesville, Ohio (25K) and Durham, New Hampshire (15K) - hardly major cities. The particular time frame that you have pulled (the immediate future) has Hillary making almost no appearances anywhere save for the upcoming debates for obvious reasons anyway. Further, the majority of what you just posted are fundraisers and those take place in small urban settings all the time. They are also completely immaterial to the discussion - where rich people gather to buy politicians really has not bearing on the contention that said politicians will only campaign in major cities.

Only in your mind.

What is even more bizarre is that you have put fourth the argument that the EC needs to remain so that politicians DO NOT simply campaign in major cities. Then you try to post evidence that those politicians only campaign on major cities under the EC system. Your personal attack stating that I have no earthly idea what I am talking about is rather laughable considering you cant even articulate a solid point here without trying to post evidence to the contrary.

Well, as I recall, I was showing that they are already doing it; as I proved it was done (as you just admitted).

Which is it - the EC prevents politicians from campaigning only in major population centers or it does nothing to stop it? You might want to get your premise straight.

I never made such an argument that the EC allows small towns a voice. That was your bullshit and to support it, you produced 2 examples out of what...30? I would say "nice try" except it wasn't really. Try to be smarter next time (fat chance).

What I have stated is that the EC is necessary to give small states a voice. Otherwise, nobody would spend a dime in Iowa during the General election. The advent of having the popular vote plurality is necessary to keep confidence in the system and ensure that the electors are not able to install someone contrary to the will of the voters.

Now don't make me correct you again.

You have not corrected me yet. All you have done is show that you are unable to articulate a position and completely unable to have a civil discussion. I do not know why I keep trying to engage you in one, you never seem to have had the ability before. Go on and keep your doublethink, I no longer have the patience for dealing with it.

I think I’ll manage without your “input”.

 

[BlindBoo]

When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.

Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.

 

[FA_Q2]

When that system was established voting was not a protected right and could only be exercised by a select few.

Not only that but it took weeks to gather all the votes from the rural areas. Today the vote totals are nearly instant.
Using the popular vote to elect the President is still part of a Republic frame. It's not like we're asking for National Referendum votes or anything.

Its the only think that makes sense. We essentially do that already.

The problem is that there are a few times when the system does something wonky and it would be easily eliminated with a PV. I think there is enough support behind it to make it happen but the parties are going to be opposed to it as it changes everything they know about running elections.