Did you know …
In a presidential election in the USA, it is possible to get more than 75% of the popular vote in a two-person election, only to see your opponent inaugurated.
Here’s how that could happen: Larry Loser wins 100% of the popular vote in states that add up to 268 electoral votes, but he loses the remaining states by the smallest margin possible. Depending on the exact breakdown of the states (or sub-states in the cases of Maine and Nebraska), that would result in one candidate winning the popular vote by approximately a 3-to-1 ratio, but losing the electoral college 270-268.
Someone thinks States are imaginary??? They don’t understand this country at all.
you certainly don’t have a clue.
what a pleasant thought 🙂
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Electoral College is hopelessly broken and a relic from the past that needs to die. Of course it won’t, since it serves the purposes of the Republicans’ gerrymandering, but it’s wholly undemocratic in nature. Come to think of it, I guess that’s another reason Republicans support it.
I’m not sure why this is a problem. I’m a New Yorker, however I have no desire for New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles to dictate to the rest of the country how they should live their lives. Removing the electoral college would be tyranny of urban centers, while smaller states will lose their voice completely as they will have no input on national elections. If you don’t like the laws where you live, then move somewhere that better suits your lifestyle and values. This is the united STATES of America. Of course I’d be totally open to allowing California to secede if they have such a big problem. No reason why they should be so unhappy. Let them build a Venezuela paradise.
Yep, that’s what Putin wants, Steverino. To cause the breakdown of democracy and the breakup of countries that oppose him. BTW, if you don’t like the laws where you live, in the USA you can work to change those laws, which is what Kevin is on the path to doing. The laws here are not carved in stone by a god, or backed by a dictator who will shoot you for advocating change.
You know, the way laws are where you live, I assume. Funny, no one else here finds it necessary to say they live in the US in practically every post they make. It’s what poker players call a “tell”, Steverino.
And the recreation of the Russian, I mean Soviet Empire plus the reacquisition of the “Near Beyond”. Oddly enough our glorious leader seems to have no problem with this. “I like Putin, OK?”.
Roger, I made the exact same point. The electoral college is the process we have and there’s a reason for it. If you don’t like the laws then change them. If you can. That’s how this works.
You’re an idiot. You say that one set of people shouldn’t dictate how the country should live their lives but conveniently ignore that is what is happening, just in reverse. You ignore it because you agree with where the balance of power currently lies, and Scoopy was just pointing out how bad the balance can get in one direction.
The EC is stupid because it means the power of your vote is dependent on geography.
Your comment makes no sense. You realize that we are 50 states united? We have different landscapes, different people, different priorities, different needs. Should everyone have to live by the laws of Los Angeles? Should well run states have to pay the penalty of poorly run states?
States are just artificial constructs. Lines randomly drawn on a map. Why should your vote have more power if you’re slightly north of a line on a map versus slightly south?
You keep throwing out a strawman that people shouldn’t have to live by the laws of what city people want. It doesn’t make any sense, because no one is arguing that. The argument is that for a federal election, every vote made by an American should have the exact same amount of influence, regardless of where they happen to live. Right now, more people live in cities than in the sticks. That doesn’t mean that will always be the case. I would still make this argument even if it was. You haven’t yet made any kind of logical argument for why my vote in California should have 1/3 of the influence of someone else’s vote in Wyoming, and it’s because there is no logical reason why that should be the case.
That is a false argument. If the people of Wyoming get two senators, why is it that the people of my small metro, which has the same population as Wyoming, essentially get none. Like Wyoming, we have different landscapes, different people, different priorities, different needs from the rest of the state, which is urban and collegiate in the South.
The reason is that Wyoming has imaginary lines around it, and we do not.
The same argument could be applied to upstate New York, downstate Illinois, etc.
And as for those different interests they have to represent, right now they are wildly over-represented. They would be fairly represented if Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska and the Dakotas were one state with two senators, not twelve. That would also be cost-efficient for the residents, who would be supporting one state government hierarchy instead of six.
If you know your history, you know how absurd it is that the empty Nebraska Territory was rapidly admitted into the union with twelve senators (Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and two Dakotas). They were lucky to find 12 people to fill those seats! And there was really no good reason to have two Dakotas other than a local quibble about where the capital of Dakota would be.
Even today, if you add together the population of those six states, they have only about the same population as the Chicago suburbs. (Just the suburbs. You don’t even need to add in the city to match the total!)
And just to show that this is not a red/blue argument. The same consolidation logic could be applied to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Indeed, it could also work with Connecticut and Rhode Island. And now that I think about it, Delaware is not a real state either. It could be merged with Maryland.
The only small states (by population) that absolutely need to exist for the reasons you specified are Hawaii and Alaska, those which really do have separate, unique cultures and interests that need representation.
Yeah, I have nowhere to go with the “imaginary states” and “imaginary lines” arguments. You sound like Johnny depp in Blow. The existence of every state serves a purpose. States are sovereign and that was by design. The electoral college was a compromise as you are all aware. And this is certainly a red/blue argument. One of the reasons liberals and conservatives talk past each other is because of how they view the role of the states. Californians look and see one society, one people, are caring for each other. People in Mississippi for example could not care less about California or Californians. They care about Mississippians. Figure that out and you will completely understand the fundamental difference between the right and the left.