- 10,081
- WFG9
"Here's the problem: Four times in United States history (including the last election), presidents have won the popular vote, meaning the people have chosen those men as the president of the United States, but simply because the presidents have won the "swing" states, they've won the election."
Not knowing the history well enough, I can only speculate that if the college and people vote similar than the winning candidate was popular, or that it is a coincidence.
"Shouldn't democracy be based on what the people believe, rather than what state populations dictate people believe?"
If were a pure socialist society of people rule or even a literal democracy, yes. But as we, as far as I have heard, perhaps it is all from biased philosophical perspectives, a constitutional republic that tries to avoid the "tyranny of democracy," no. And do you think the risk of the micro population overpowering the macro population will go away or lessen because of majority rule? Unless a pattern of voting changes after the first few years of "radical" change to the occupant in the White House, a party, having no strong counter balance of electors to try to determine, one hopes but does not presume, objectively what is in the best interest of the given state and country, may have a dominance in the W. H. for decades. Even states whose population swings in opposition to the dominate party may have enough stalwarts who will vote loyally to keep the party in power, albeit that can happen regardless. But another issue is of voter turn out: If one party has a greater number of regular voters than another, that makes that party's victory all but certain. A change to party make up, as admittedly are many things, is not a reliable randomizer that can give the minority party the perception of possible victory. Regardless of the dominant philosophy of any party, even if they are all highly similar, why should the minority party's members bother voting en masse if their party has been dwarfed in terms of voter turn out by the dominant party's loyalists who may vote loyally despite objections to their own party? Granted, that is the minority party's fault, but human nature may not be alterable, so convincing a party's members to do their party proud against a historical record of failure and a sense of futility would take very good campaigning.
"Traditionally, I've lived in Democratic cities in primarily Republican swing states, and it's angered me that we often had Democratic representatives and mayors, but because our state had more Republicans, we were labeled as a state that "went" Republican. I'd like each vote to count, thank you, rather than each vote be totaled and the party receiving the most votes to win the state."
Please clarify.
"Actually, Illinois is a perfect example of why the electoral college should be abolished. If not for Chicago, an extremely left-wing city, we wouldn't HAVE the number of representatives that we do (19). Because we have 19 reps, we get 19 votes in the electoral college. The problem, of course, is even though a good portion of the state always votes Democrat, when the full state goes to the Republicans, all 19 members have to vote that way. It's a weak system."
I have heard that states can determine, to what extent I do not know, how their system will work.
Last, a major problem with majority rule exists outside of party lines. The vary geography of the country can affect voting, meaning that if the majority of the people live in cities they are more likely to vote against measures which would weaken them while stregthening farm communities, and so on.
Not knowing the history well enough, I can only speculate that if the college and people vote similar than the winning candidate was popular, or that it is a coincidence.
"Shouldn't democracy be based on what the people believe, rather than what state populations dictate people believe?"
If were a pure socialist society of people rule or even a literal democracy, yes. But as we, as far as I have heard, perhaps it is all from biased philosophical perspectives, a constitutional republic that tries to avoid the "tyranny of democracy," no. And do you think the risk of the micro population overpowering the macro population will go away or lessen because of majority rule? Unless a pattern of voting changes after the first few years of "radical" change to the occupant in the White House, a party, having no strong counter balance of electors to try to determine, one hopes but does not presume, objectively what is in the best interest of the given state and country, may have a dominance in the W. H. for decades. Even states whose population swings in opposition to the dominate party may have enough stalwarts who will vote loyally to keep the party in power, albeit that can happen regardless. But another issue is of voter turn out: If one party has a greater number of regular voters than another, that makes that party's victory all but certain. A change to party make up, as admittedly are many things, is not a reliable randomizer that can give the minority party the perception of possible victory. Regardless of the dominant philosophy of any party, even if they are all highly similar, why should the minority party's members bother voting en masse if their party has been dwarfed in terms of voter turn out by the dominant party's loyalists who may vote loyally despite objections to their own party? Granted, that is the minority party's fault, but human nature may not be alterable, so convincing a party's members to do their party proud against a historical record of failure and a sense of futility would take very good campaigning.
"Traditionally, I've lived in Democratic cities in primarily Republican swing states, and it's angered me that we often had Democratic representatives and mayors, but because our state had more Republicans, we were labeled as a state that "went" Republican. I'd like each vote to count, thank you, rather than each vote be totaled and the party receiving the most votes to win the state."
Please clarify.
"Actually, Illinois is a perfect example of why the electoral college should be abolished. If not for Chicago, an extremely left-wing city, we wouldn't HAVE the number of representatives that we do (19). Because we have 19 reps, we get 19 votes in the electoral college. The problem, of course, is even though a good portion of the state always votes Democrat, when the full state goes to the Republicans, all 19 members have to vote that way. It's a weak system."
I have heard that states can determine, to what extent I do not know, how their system will work.
Last, a major problem with majority rule exists outside of party lines. The vary geography of the country can affect voting, meaning that if the majority of the people live in cities they are more likely to vote against measures which would weaken them while stregthening farm communities, and so on.
