Electoral College

When you have a corrupt MSM funded by foreign radicals like George Soros trying to foment revolution it's hardly surprising.

There's an argument for a requirement to pay income tax in order to be able to vote.

"No representation without taxation".

--sp

That would have scuppered Trump :)

Is a paid revolutionary a revolutionary or just a mercenary?

They do have a cause to complain. If you live in Alaska you only get 3 electorial votes. One for the 750,000 residents and 2 more for the 2 senators. One plus 2 equals 3. According to you, Alaska should have only one electorial vote which is one step away from nothing. Which politician would ever campaign in Alaska? Who would do anything for you if you lived in Alaska?

So Donald Trump should not be allowed to vote? Should he also not be allowed to hold public office since that would mean he represents himself?

If you think that, you have not understand anything I've said. I am saying each and every one of the voters in Alaska should get one vote for President, the same as everyone else in the entire USA. Why should anyone get more votes than one?

BTW, who the hell campaigns in Alaska now??? Other than Sarah Palin of course... How many times did Trump go there? How about Clinton?

That's part of the argument for the electoral college. If it was a popular vote, the candidates would campaign in Orange County Ca, Texas, part of Illinois, NY, Atlanta and south Fl. Here's a population density map.

Mikek

Because he's *NOT* wrong. He's absolutely correct.

Dumbass, the makeup of the EC, like the bicameral legislature was designed to do precisely what David said. Do learn something from him. He is a infinitely more intelligent than you are.

Dumbass, the idea wasn't to make equal, otherwise there wouldn't be a House and there would be a fixed number of electors from each state.

You've been told many times that this is *not* a democracy. Never was intended to be. There is a reason it's called the "federal" government and the county has "United States" in its name.

How is that different from now where they campaigned in half a dozen states and even then mostly in the cities?

I wish I could answer all your questions, I can't.

Mikek

We are having a discussion and you can't explain to me what you are talking about?

So, why should Alaska have 2 senators? There are only 700K people in Alaska and they control 2% of the Senate. That isn't fair is it?

ka

Not intended to be " fair ". Intended to make sure the states with high p opulations do not control the country. If Calif, New York, and Texas and a couple of other states passed a law that made the rest of the states pay a ll the taxes would that be fair. Could be done if there was no Senate.

Dan

aska

populations do not control the country. If Calif, New York, and Texas and a couple of other states passed a law that made the rest of the states pay all the taxes would that be fair. Could be done if there was no Senate.

As has been pointed out, the small states don't have enough senators to mat ter. What's more basic is that they each have their own representative, so they know what's going on and can make state-specific representations.

These representations won't usually make much difference, but it makes the state as a whole happier to know that they have been made.

It's more about "feel good factors" than political power.

e:

Alaska

gh populations do not control the country. If Calif, New York, and Texas a nd a couple of other states passed a law that made the rest of the states p ay all the taxes would that be fair. Could be done if there was no Senate.

atter.

y know what's going on and can make state-specific representations.

e state as a whole happier to know that they have been made.

More ignorant concepts.

Dan

Or how about not? Along with the Electoral College, we have a House and Senate, President, and courts, a group of people we (s)elect by various means with special qualifications to handle various functions. Are those a bad idea too?

Or is there a benefit to distilling down the wisdom of the people in a few stages, to concentrate and purify it? Do you ever use multiple stages and shields to filter out noise?

But then if citizens are so sage, so wise, so able, why have a Congress at all? We could just all vote on every issue they'd otherwise handle.

Like you are, right now?

Grins, James Arthur

That's an excellent argument against abolishing the Electoral College-- abolishing the EC would dilute the power of the states.

States are important entities. Our system intentionally distributes powers across the country, to prevent accumulation in too few hands; the states are a vital part of that. It's how we've forged a tolerant, free, diverse society from peoples who do not all wish to live exactly the same way.

States have different peoples, industries, needs, climates, etc. We WANT those needs & interests represented, and we want people of a state to bind together.

It's an obvious attempt to skirt the Constitution--their sole motivation is their lack of the consensus required for a constitutional amendment.

If small states no longer felt the need to respect a federal government that they had no voice in, that's the road to revolution.

Under the Electoral College as intended, the 538 members of the EC would inspect & investigate candidates, then vote. Candidates would need hardly any money to run & wouldn't be financially indebted to anyone. Each elector could easily get a personal audience with and grill any or all of the candidates to his or her satisfaction, then cast a highly- informed vote.

The popular vote requires candidates to raise fortunes to advertise to the entire United States, which in turn forces the candidates to raise huge sums from loads of donors, and of necessity, to run short ads that inform no one.

Cheers, James Arthur

LOL! Why not just let Congress pick the President? I would actually go for that. Essentially that is how the parliamentary system works. But then, Congress should also have the power to remove a President. The citizens still control it all because they vote for the members of Congress.

I don't have any problem with changing the constitution. It was designed to be changed. The electoral college is one of the more poorly thought out portions of that particular document and it is time to do something about the problems it causes.