the electoral college a middle ground

[dogs4thewin]

There has been a lot of stink in recent years about the electoral college being what decides who is president. What if all states did it like ME and NE that is to say that the votes may be split based on how each district voted. In this way each vote would count without the people in the cities having too much control.

 

[Desk trauma]

There has been a lot of stink in recent years about the electoral college being what decides who is president.

Because it's an anti-democratic relic that should be abolished.

What if all states did it like ME and NE that is to say that the votes may be split based on how each district voted.

That would be up to each state as how they allocate electors is up to them while any change to the EC would require a constitutional amendment which is a non starter in our land of gridlock.

In this way each vote would count without the people in the cities having too much control.

No, we need less gerrymandering not more.

 

[Arcangl86]

There has been a lot of stink in recent years about the electoral college being what decides who is president.

Yes, because it is a 18th century relic of a time when the franchise was limited and those in power didn't trust the general public to make sure an important decision. It doesn't make sense now.

What if all states did it like ME and NE that is to say that the votes may be split based on how each district voted.

It would be an improvement, but gerrymandering already is enough of a problem without adding more incentive to do so. Also, this wouldn't deal with one of the bigger issues (in both the house and indirectly the EC) that there is often a big difference in how many people are in each district on a national level. A true proportional system would be a better way to do it.

In this way each vote would count without the people in the cities having too much control.

Why shouldn't the people in the cities have more control? 80% of the country lives in an urban area.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because it's an anti-democratic relic that should be abolished.



That would be up to each state as how they allocate electors is up to them while any change to the EC would require a constitutional amendment which is a non starter in our land of gridlock.


No, we need less gerrymandering not more.

so then maybe it would be better for the states to be encourage to do it that way instead if requiring it is not a viable option

This is a republic NOT a direct democratic government, anyway

I would even be OK with tighter requirements to vote namely a requirement to either take and pass a civics test OR a requirement where you have to basically match the candiate to ensure that people are actually informed voters. I would also SUPPORT the age going back up to 21, but realize that that is very unlikely to happen. Note this is not the same as requiring a poll tax or even a reading test since I have no problem with someone having he ballot read to them ( as long a they are otherwise judged mentally fit to vote ( meaning that the court has not stepped in to require them to have someone else manage their affairs not that I disagree with their views.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes, because it is a 18th century relic of a time when the franchise was limited and those in power didn't trust the general public to make sure an important decision. It doesn't make sense now.

It would be an improvement, but gerrymandering already is enough of a problem without adding more incentive to do so. Also, this wouldn't deal with one of the bigger issues (in both the house and indirectly the EC) that there is often a big difference in how many people are in each district on a national level. A true proportional system would be a better way to do it.

Why shouldn't the people in the cities have more control? 80% of the country lives in an urban area.

Wait ,I am confused it is my understanding ( and I could be wrong but it is my understanding that they (the government purposely try to make the districts fairly equal in terms of population. In other words, it has been my understanding that if there are say a million people in a state ( for round numbers sake and say 10 districts ( I know those numbers are different than real numbers, but just for the sake of having round numbers to work with in that case the districts would try to be arranged so that ( roughly) 100k people would live in each district .

Cites are different than in the country the lifestyle is different and we would not want the cities pushing to control rural areas.

An example of this idea is that there are people in rural areas who have literally voted down businesses coming in and loser zoning restrictions because we ( I happen to live in a rural area) like it this way ( although we are not stupid that does come with drawbacks.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Wait ,I am confused it is my understanding ( and I could be wrong but it is my understanding that they (the government purposely try to make the districts fairly equal in terms of population. In other words, it has been my understanding that if there are say a million people in a state ( for round numbers sake and say 10 districts ( I know those numbers are different than real numbers, but just for the sake of having round numbers to work with in that case the districts would try to be arranged so that ( roughly) 100k people would live in each district .

Cites are different than in the country the lifestyle is different and we would not want the cities pushing to control rural areas.

An example of this idea is that there are people in rural areas who have literally voted down businesses coming in and loser zoning restrictions because we ( I happen to live in a rural area) like it this way ( although we are not stupid that does come with drawbacks.

I live in a city. Why should your vote count more than mine. What makes you so special that my voting power should be diluted but yours shouldn’t?

 

[Desk trauma]

so then maybe it would be better for the states to be encourage to do it that way instead if requiring it is not a viable option

No.

This is a republic NOT a direct democratic government, anyway

Ah the good old semantic nonsense.

I would even be OK with tighter requirements to vote namely a requirement to either take and pass a civics test OR a requirement where you have to basically match the candiate to ensure that people are actually informed voters.

I am sure that would not be abused nor rigged to exclude those who would vote against those making the test, no sir-e.

I would also SUPPORT the age going back up to 21, but realize that that is very unlikely to happen.

Why?

Note this is not the same as requiring a poll tax or even a reading test since I have no problem with someone having he ballot read to them ( as long a they are otherwise judged mentally fit to vote ( meaning that the court has not stepped in to require them to have someone else manage their affairs not that I disagree with their views.

How are they going to pass the test you want if they cannot read it?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I live in a city. Why should your vote count more than mine. What makes you so special that my voting power should be diluted but yours shouldn’t?

so you are supposing that cites should control rural areas even when we do not want to be controlled by city policies? Several here will tell you if we wanted to live in a rural area we would move since we like it this way we purposely take steps to avoid becoming too developed. This does not mean that everyone in the country is opposed to a few businesses coming in or anything, but in many areas there would be an awful lot of push back in urbanizing certain area.

Some people for example may feel that it would be OK to have more businesses in town, but do not want the town area to grow too much.

For example, I live in a rural country by area we are one of the largest in the state and yet there are less than 20k people who reside in this county at last count do you seriously think we have the same lifestyle and would accept the same policies as counties with five to ten times that population?

 

[Desk trauma]

so you are supposing that cites should control rural areas even when we do not want to be controlled by city policies?

When it comes to state or nation wide votes the majority is going to carry the day, the majority of people live in urban areas.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No.


Ah the good old semantic nonsense.



I am sure that would not be abused nor rigged to exclude those who would vote against those making the test, no sir-e.



Why?



How are they going to pass the test you want if they cannot read it?

I have no issue with someone reading them the test.

It is like when my sister had third graders who could not read, yet they understood the material being taught if it was read to them, so to be fair unless it was a reading test which neither of the suggested tests would be she would read to those few students to actually get an ACTUATE picture of what they were learning. .

 

[Desk trauma]

I have no issue with someone reading them the test.

It is like when my sister had third graders who could not read, yet they understood the material being taught if it was read to them, so to be fair unless it was a reading test which neither of the suggested tests would be she would read to those few students to actually get an ACTUATE picture of what they were learning. .

You trust those in power to make a test that would exclude people from voting to not make it so that it would exclude those who would vote against them?

 

[dogs4thewin]

When it comes to state or nation wide votes the majority is going to carry the day, the majority of people live in urban areas.

that was why the EC was set up ( in part so that rural areas would have a say in policy ( note not the only reason. This would be why something like this would be a good middle ground because then each vote could count without it being a statewide thing. Why do you think it is that unless you live in a handful of states if you are in the minority party there is really little point in voting? I cannot help but notice looking at those maps that there is a LOT more red than blue yet the blue usually wins out, so if we had it where the districts made the decisions then it should be a more actuate resesention

 

[dogs4thewin]

You trust those in power to make a test that would exclude people from voting to not make it so that it would exclude those who would vote against them?

If you had people make the tests where it would be impossible to vote against all of them because they came from the full range of political stances.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

so you are supposing that cites should control rural areas even when we do not want to be controlled by city policies? Several here will tell you if we wanted to live in a rural area we would move since we like it this way we purposely take steps to avoid becoming too developed. This does not mean that everyone in the country is opposed to a few businesses coming in or anything, but in many areas there would be an awful lot of push back in urbanizing certain area.

Some people for example may feel that it would be OK to have more businesses in town, but do not want the town area to grow too much.

For example, I live in a rural country by area we are one of the largest in the state and yet there are less than 20k people who reside in this county and last count do you seriously think we have the same lifestyle and would accept the same policies as counties with five to ten times that population?

I’m not taking about a city. I’m talking about my own personal vote. Why are you so important that your vote gets count more than mine. I am not my neighbors so don’t lump them in with me. Why on an individual vote are you so special that your individual vote gets to count more than my individual vote?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I’m not taking about a city. I’m talking about my own personal vote. Why are you so important that your vote gets count more than mine. I am not my neighbors so don’t lump them in with me. Why on an individual vote are you so special that your individual vote gets to count more than my individual vote?

Again, the lifestyles tend to be different ( otherwise in today's day and time people would move. There are things that "fly" in the cities that good luck getting them to "fly" out here with the different way of life.

 

[Desk trauma]

This would be why something like this would be a good middle ground because then each vote could count without it being a statewide thing.

I am not a fan of polishing this turd. It's bad now, adding gerrymandering to it makes it worse.

Why do you think it is that unless you live in a handful of states if you are in the minority party there is really little point in voting?

The electoral collage. The presidency is our only nation wide elected office, give everyone's vote an equal say in it.

I cannot help but notice looking at those maps that there is a LOT more red than blue yet the blue usually wins out, so if we had it where the districts made the decisions then it should be a more actuate resesention

Those maps have the places where most people live highlighted in shades of blue.

 

[JustOneWay]

Cites are different than in the country the lifestyle is different and we would not want the cities pushing to control rural areas.

As was already stated, 80% of Americans live in urban areas. Country folk are entitled to only 20% say in what goes on in the country.

 

[Desk trauma]

If you had people make the tests where it would be impossible to vote against all of them because they came from the full range of political stances.

Who are these mythical impartial people you would give a say over my right to vote?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I am not a fan of polishing this turd. It's bad now, adding gerrymandering to it makes it worse.



The electoral collage. The presidency our only nation wide elected office, give everyone's vote an equal say in it.


Those maps have the places where most people live highlighted in shades of blue.

Honest question how would that be gerrymandering if the populations were roughly equal ( particularly if the maps were drawn up fairly ? Which why do you think certain maps have been taken to court because people had issues with how they were drawn up.

 

[Desk trauma]

Again, the lifestyles tend to be different ( otherwise in today's day and time people would move. There are things that "fly" in the cities that good luck getting them to "fly" out here with the different way of life.

Therefore low population states and areas should be over represented in a national/state vote? Going to have to walk me thought that one.