frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,512
- 9,967
- 2,030
Desiring that one person has one vote isn't such a bad thing
You are inferring that one person, one vote only counts when their candidate wins.
One person, one vote does count IN THE INDIVIDUAL STATES where the ACTUAL CHOOSING OF THE PRESIDENT takes place.
Why can't you get it through your thick freaking head that without the EC, only the East and Left coast would elect our President. That would would disenfranchise the vast majority of the country by absolutely destroying the concept of one person, one vote.
Yes, there's one person one vote in the states, but not in the country, and it's the country that's choosing the president, isn't it? I mean, if the electoral college vote worked along fair lines, rather than Wyoming having three electoral college votes when it should have one, it could be FAIR. Don't you think?
That would mean that WY could only have 1 Senator or 1 Representative, not both, in the Federal government. That would be fair, wouldn't it? Or don't you want them to have representation in both houses of Congress?
WY has 2 Senators, just like the other 49 states and 1 Representative = 3 EC votes.
Tell me, which of the following states should only have 1 vote.
Number of Electoral Votes
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 11
Arkansas 6
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
District of Columbia 3
Florida 29
Georgia 16
Hawaii 4
Idaho 4
Illinois 20
Indiana 11
Iowa 6
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 6
Missouri 10
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 6
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 18
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 4
South Carolina 9
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 38
Utah 6
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 3
Yeah, Congress isn't fair either. However the House is made up more or less on proportional lines, though each state decides how it will split up those lines.
Proportional Representation would mean that every individual (don't the right just love individuals when it suits them) would get a say in the election.
Look at the German system. You have two votes. One is for the constituency and one is for PR.
German federal election, 2013 - Wikipedia
With PR, the CDU/CSU gained 18 million votes. With FPTP (like the US has) they gained nearly 20 million votes. Yep, nearly 2 million people decided they wanted to vote for the CDU or CSU in a First Past the Post winner takes all system, but rather wouldn't for who they want to be in government.
Same with the SPD, 1.6 million people voted for them in FPTP but not in PR.
The smaller parties gained in PR and lost in first past the post.
So what they do is give each party their constituency seats and then give out list seats to make it proportional. So, the SPD 29.4% of the FPTP votes, they got 25.7% of the PR votes and they got 30.5% of the seats. This was in 2013 when the FPD and AfD both gained just under the threshold of 5% to get in, so a lot of votes ended up going to parties who didn't get a single seat.
The previous election the SPD got FPTP 27.9% and PR 23% and 23.5% of the seats, making it a lot fairer.
Basically, 23% of the people said they wanted the SPD to be in government and the SPD had 23.5% of the power in government.
In the US 49.1% of the people voted Republican and they got 51% of the seats and 48% voted Democrat and they got 45% of the seats. But then you have a senate which then skews things up to make it difficult to even point to anything.
But the biggest problem is that in Germany you have many parties that people can choose from and the US you have two, basically, because everyone's too scared of the other party.