@averagejoe1 saidIndiana isn't exactly a small state; it has nearly seven million citizens.
That is NOT why I support the EC. I support it so that the large 'groups' (NY, CA) cannot rule the lives of the samall groups (WY,ID)
The system as a stands allows a "large group" (e.g., the 14 million citizens of New York City) to rule the lives of a "small group" (the 6 million citizens of Upstate New York). With a growing rural / urban divide in the US, something similar must be true of a great many states.
The electoral college does not ensure that the winner cannot rule the lives of small groups. It does nothing to prevent one party being simultaneously in control of the Presidency, House and Senate, for instance.
The way to ensure that the majority doesn't dominate is a system of multi-party democracy with proportional representation. That way, parties are constantly required to negotiate with each other to hammer out compromise solutions. It works pretty well in a country like the Netherlands (although alas, not in Britain, which has many of the same political problems as the United States).
@teinosuke saidWell if you artificially split voters into categories like urban and rural then obviously less people live in rural areas by almost definition but why do you think that urban voter X is bound to voter differently to rural voter Y.
Indiana isn't exactly a small state; it has nearly seven million citizens.
The system as a stands allows a "large group" (e.g., the 14 million citizens of New York City) to rule the lives of a "small group" (the 6 million citizens of Upstate New York). With a growing rural / urban divide in the US, something similar must be true of a great many states.
The electoral c ...[text shortened]... (although alas, not in Britain, which has many of the same political problems as the United States).
It’s much more likely that people vote based on their economic needs rather than wether they are rural or urban.
Minorities have to be concrete in a religious, ethnic or socioeconomic sense or they are not minorities at all for the purposes of this debate.
@averagejoe1 saidThe Electoral College when it was originally established had nothing to do with such considerations - the urban population of the US in 1790 barely existed:
Get rid of Electoral College? But, the Framers rightfully feared the tendency of Pure Democracy, which we and the Framers want to be the case, to descend into Mob Rule and run roughshod over the rights of disfavored minorities. (What Marauder and Sonhouse want to be the case)
The Constitution is full of anti-majoritarian safeguards, a primary one being the Electoral ...[text shortened]... n the biggest states—California, for example—and major urban centers like Chicago and New York City.
"The percentage of the U.S. population living in a city of 2,500 or more was 5.1 in 1790".
https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/005/#:~:text=This%20reflected%20a%20shift%20from,rose%20to%2035.1%20by%201890.
The main reason the EC was put into place was because the delegates at the Constitutional Convention couldn't agree on any other method. The technology available in 1790 made a popular vote Presidential election impracticable in a country the size of the US.
The original premise of the EC had little to do with the present system of winner take all States and partisan elections; it was designed to send a supposedly especially qualified group of distinguished men to the capital to decide among themselves who would make the best President. Interestedly, it was thought this would be a guard against populist rabble rousers (obviously the present system dismally fails to provide such protection).
To say the system is broken is a ridiculous understatement. It does not serve its original purpose or any other rational one. It is long since time to abolish it, but given the political realities of the foreseeable future and the cumbersome nature of the amendment process, it's not going to be changed for decades at best.
@kevcvs57 saidIt's a simple fact that people in the US vote differently based on the urban-rural distinction (with suburbs in between).
Well if you artificially split voters into categories like urban and rural then obviously less people live in rural areas by almost definition but why do you think that urban voter X is bound to voter differently to rural voter Y.
It’s much more likely that people vote based on their economic needs rather than wether they are rural or urban.
Minorities have to be concrete ...[text shortened]... us, ethnic or socioeconomic sense or they are not minorities at all for the purposes of this debate.
In 2020, Biden got 60% of the vote in urban areas but only 42% in rural ones. https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results
This continues a trend which has existed for decades at least.
@vivify saidYes. Thanks, maybe they will listen to you. It is possible that just a few states can decide for the rest of the country. Whatever system would allow that should not be the system to live under.
The electoral college gives even more power to those "large groups". It only takes winning12 out of 50 states in order to win an election. The 12 largest states can decide for the rest of the country who should be president.
@kevcvs57 saidCan't pull it up now, but a great analogy was that NY has subway needs, and WY has barbed wire needs. Surely we all know that the large NY is going to get some nice shiny new subways, and WY.....well, who cares if they need barbed wire. They will not get their wire voted on from the rulers of the larger populated areas.
Well if you artificially split voters into categories like urban and rural then obviously less people live in rural areas by almost definition but why do you think that urban voter X is bound to voter differently to rural voter Y.
It’s much more likely that people vote based on their economic needs rather than wether they are rural or urban.
Minorities have to be concrete ...[text shortened]... us, ethnic or socioeconomic sense or they are not minorities at all for the purposes of this debate.
@averagejoe1 saidThen we both agree the electoral college should be eliminated.
It is possible that just a few states can decide for the rest of the country. Whatever system would allow that should not be the system to live under.
@vivify saidIf the college is eliminated...........wait, did you not read my opening monologue? You want mob rule? You don't want the peons to have a voice? I thought you were a liberal. Screw the little people. Right? (had to say right, Suzanne used to say that, In Writing! It looked funny in writing.). Right!!
Then we both agree the electoral college should be eliminated.
Maybe I will start a thread in Kev's honor, his lot in the UK are pouring milk out in grocery stores, on the floor, while mothers look on in disbelief. What is wrong with his people? They have those queer signs,,,,"Plant Based Future". And all of the males (cant say men)seem emasculated and the girls are fat. They wear glasses, and they have on used clothing. They are making a huge hit!
I think we are witnessing big time decay, worldwide. Lib celebs are leaving California!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@teinosuke saidThat's because the Founding Fathers were intimately familiar with the British system - being, until just before then, British themselves after all - and saw how well that system did for the upper class. They wanted some of that sweet, sweet power for themselves, and for themselves alone, so they decided to use the same system, slightly adapted for the different country but the same in essence.
The way to ensure that the majority doesn't dominate is a system of multi-party democracy with proportional representation. That way, parties are constantly required to negotiate with each other to hammer out compromise solutions. It works pretty well in a country like the Netherlands (although alas, not in Britain, which has many of the same political problems as the United States).
2 edits
@kevcvs57 saidNot bound to, but as No1 says there's an observable trend. Most American voters in the countryside vote Republican; most voters in cities vote Democrat. Comparable trends are visible in other countries. Look at the UK electoral map and you'll see that Labour basically takes the cities (London, Manchester / Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Cardiff) and the university towns, while the Tories win rural constituencies: islands of red in a sea of blue.
Well if you artificially split voters into categories like urban and rural then obviously less people live in rural areas by almost definition but why do you think that urban voter X is bound to voter differently to rural voter Y.
It’s much more likely that people vote based on their economic needs rather than wether they are rural or urban.
Minorities have to be concrete ...[text shortened]... us, ethnic or socioeconomic sense or they are not minorities at all for the purposes of this debate.
There's a good reason for this: urban voters are likely to depend on a wider range of public services than rural ones. The citizens of New York or London take the subway or tube to work. The citizens of Montana or Shropshire drive. Moreover, public sector employment is concentrated in the cities; rural voters are much more likely to work for small businesses.
These kind of differences could be rather more politically salient than religious or ethnic ones.
@averagejoe1 saidYou just said a system that allows a few states to decide for the rest of the country should not be allowed. Did you forget already?
If the college is eliminated...........wait, did you not read my opening monologue? You want mob rule? You don't want the peons to have a voice? I thought you were a liberal. Screw the little people. Right? (had to say right, Suzanne used to say that, In Writing! It looked funny in writing.). Right!!
@no1marauder saidNot to split hairs but I never said that they didn’t, I claimed there was no reason why they would.
It's a simple fact that people in the US vote differently based on the urban-rural distinction (with suburbs in between).
In 2020, Biden got 60% of the vote in urban areas but only 42% in rural ones. https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results
This continues a trend which has existed for decades at least.
There is no rational reason of self interest for this phenomena and rural voters are not a minority in the sense of the word as it relates to this debate IMO
@kevcvs57 saidI explained the rational reason for this in my post above. To repeat:
Not to split hairs but I never said that they didn’t, I claimed there was no reason why they would.
There is no rational reason of self interest for this phenomena and rural voters are not a minority in the sense of the word as it relates to this debate IMO
Urban voters are likely to depend on a wider range of public services than rural ones. The citizens of New York or London take the subway or tube to work. The citizens of Montana or Shropshire drive. Moreover, public sector employment is concentrated in the cities; rural voters are much more likely to work for small businesses.
@mghrn55 said"It seems he wants a minority to rule."
It seems he wants a minority to rule.
If it is not a majority that rules, then who does ?
Which kind of explains Jan 6.
No, that's just his excuse. He wouldn't mind the majority having the say if it was his group in the majority.
He knows however he won't ever be able to convince a majority of americans his ideas are better. Republicans haven't won the popular vote in like 20 years and the gap is increasing. They have to resort to gerrymandering and making sure the "wrong" people don't vote