The argument against the electoral college is all votes should count equally. For the sake of illustration I am going to paint both a simple yet extreme and unrealistic example:

The United States population is 300 million where 80 million people live in NY, 80 million people live in CA, and the other 140 million live in the remaining 48 states. Fireworks are illegal in CA and NY but legal in all other states. NY and CA are so opposed to fireworks they want a federal law banning them. There is only an executive branch so all laws are done via executive order and the election comes down to this one issue.

The Democratic candidate promises to ban them and the Republican candidate will allow the states to decide. The Democrat gets 100% of the votes in NY and CA or 160 million, and the Republican gets 100% of the other states or 140 million. Also let's assume California is only Los Angeles and NY is only NYC.

In this example, should the majority who live within a few square miles get to determine the laws of the entire land and determine that fireworks cannot by shot off in the 99.99% + part of the country they do not live in?

No and we didn't need a new thread to point this out.

yeah everyone I know - including anti-EC liberals - understand all the arguments I've ever heard in favor of the Electoral College system.

afcjets wrote:

The argument against the electoral college is all votes should count equally. For the sake of illustration I am going to paint both a simple yet extreme and unrealistic example:

The United States population is 300 million where 80 million people live in NY, 80 million people live in CA, and the other 140 million live in the remaining 48 states. Fireworks are illegal in CA and NY but legal in all other states. NY and CA are so opposed to fireworks they want a federal law banning them. There is only an executive branch so all laws are done via executive order and the election comes down to this one issue.

The Democratic candidate promises to ban them and the Republican candidate will allow the states to decide. The Democrat gets 100% of the votes in NY and CA or 160 million, and the Republican gets 100% of the other states or 140 million. Also let's assume California is only Los Angeles and NY is only NYC.

In this example, should the majority who live within a few square miles get to determine the laws of the entire land and determine that fireworks cannot by shot off in the 99.99% + part of the country they do not live in?

It's extreme, unrealistic and lacking in common sense.

First of all, a President cannot really "ban" anything. He has to go through Congress on most things. That makes it unrealistic.

Secondly, we're not talking about local or state ordinances here, we're talking about electiong the President of the ENTIRE United States. That's for all 50 states, every country and every town in the nation. This shouldn't be a contest between states; it should be who the people decide who will lead the nation. ALL the people.

The argument since this last election is that California should literally be discounted because Mrs. Clinton won by 4 million votes there. That's absurd. They are part of the United States, and if "one person, one vote" has any meaning, it shouldn't matter which states the votes come from. What should matter is that voting for President should be no different than voting for a member of the House, or the Senate, or a Governor, or a state legislator, or a mayor, or a school board member-majority vote wins.

The Electoral College has outlived what it was used for. Either we're one nation, or we aren't. And when it comes to electing the President of The United States, we should vote like we're one nation, not 50 feifdoms.

You'd better be more precise in terms of statistics. The population of CA is under 40 millions. And of state of N.Y. is under 20 millions.

Say, here in Virginia people do not care what crazy liberals are thinking or doing in CA or NY. And why would they care?

Hills, one should be completely ignorant of the U.S. federalism to state that "one man - one voice" might change anything.
This idea seemed quite fair to me when I didn't live in the States. But it is completely misleading.
The electoral college confirms again and again that outcome is always repeats general trends. And all other elections and their results match presidential election.
Liberals believe that it would help them. It is completely wrong. The turnout of anti-liberals in CA or NY would be much higher. They simply don't vote in presidential election.
I would remind you that republican governors were elected in CA and NY. And not once.
Besides, after all scandals of this cycle I simply don't trust libbies. They lie, they manipulate, they are rotten. They have no honor.
That was why they have spectacularly lost. Thank God.

pylon101 wrote:

You'd better be more precise in terms of statistics. The population of CA is under 40 millions. And of state of N.Y. is under 20 millions.

Why would I when I was purposely being extreme, simplistic and unrealistic as I said in both the title and the first sentence to illustrate a point.

afcjets wrote:

Why would I when I was purposely being extreme, simplistic and unrealistic as I said in both the title and the first sentence to illustrate a point.

Then the very simple reply is that your hypothetical is extremely simplistic and unrealistic, and therefore illustrates nothing except extreme, simple, and unrealistic points.

It's easy enough to come up with a counter-(also extreme, simple, and unrealistic)-example, because more populous states have less electoral representation per voter.

I think this article pretty much desroys the "Electoral College/States Rights" argument very well. https://medium.com/@khayeswilson/clinto ... .ax6bultfr

If the IL-WI border were just a few miles south of where it is and if the FL panhandle were just a bit shorter, Hillary Clinton would have won.

Certainly, there's a role for states' rights in the functioning of the United States. It's just that the election of a single executive who oversees the functioning of the entire Federal bureaucracy and our foreign policy is not that place.

afcjets wrote:

The argument against the electoral college is all votes should count equally. For the sake of illustration I am going to paint both a simple yet extreme and unrealistic example:

The United States population is 300 million where 80 million people live in NY, 80 million people live in CA, and the other 140 million live in the remaining 48 states. Fireworks are illegal in CA and NY but legal in all other states. NY and CA are so opposed to fireworks they want a federal law banning them. There is only an executive branch so all laws are done via executive order and the election comes down to this one issue.

The Democratic candidate promises to ban them and the Republican candidate will allow the states to decide. The Democrat gets 100% of the votes in NY and CA or 160 million, and the Republican gets 100% of the other states or 140 million. Also let's assume California is only Los Angeles and NY is only NYC.

In this example, should the majority who live within a few square miles get to determine the laws of the entire land and determine that fireworks cannot by shot off in the 99.99% + part of the country they do not live in?

That's enough moonshine for tonight.

DocLightning wrote:

I think this article pretty much desroys the "Electoral College/States Rights" argument very well. https://medium.com/@khayeswilson/clinto ... .ax6bultfr

If the IL-WI border were just a few miles south of where it is and if the FL panhandle were just a bit shorter, Hillary Clinton would have won.

You could flip the results in any close election by tweaking the borders in key states. The Wisconsin state line is only 30 miles from ORD airport, so moving it a few miles basically annexes parts of the nations's third largest CITY's metro area in the US with a population of 9.5 million people into a STATE with a population of only 5.5 million. Not only is Chicago the third largest city and metro area in the US, it is one of the most heavily Democratic ones too, it has been almost 100 years since they have had a Republican mayor. Why would Wisconsin want to borrow from a metro area almost twice the size of their entire state population wise?

afcjets wrote:

pylon101 wrote:

You'd better be more precise in terms of statistics. The population of CA is under 40 millions. And of state of N.Y. is under 20 millions.

Why would I when I was purposely being extreme, simplistic and unrealistic as I said in both the title and the first sentence to illustrate a point.

Even that "simplistic example" is just utter rubbish. For starters, you're confusing the EC (whose only job function is to elect the president) with Congress.

Those 160 million residents in CA and NY (oh look...evil, liberal, elite blue states) allow those two states more power in the House than in the Senate (where they're stuck with two senators on equal footing with the rest of the states). Even then, CA and NY have both GOP and Democratic representatives. The laws passed in Congress may reach a stalemate because while they may pass/sink in the House with those two states having the bigger influence, the Senate ensures the interest of all 50 states is balanced.

But you're bringing the EC and the "simplistic example" is so detailed to make the EC necessary, by suggesting that the Executive Branch alone dictates the laws of the country (even though the states can control their own affairs) and you attempt to further state your "simplistic example" by saying that NY and CA are just NYC and LA (gasp! look...liberal, elitist, evil cities in blue states) while the rest of the country houses the rest of the 140 million residents.

First of all, this is an example of why the EC needs to go. Given the 80 million residents in each of these two states, you can guarantee that these two will contain probably between 25-40% of the EC votes (CA with its 38 million residents has 55, so bumping that number up to 80 million with New York should add to about 60-75 EC votes each). Your scenario depicts the best case scenario where one candidate wins these two states and the other wins the rest (even going as far as to suggest that they'll win 100% of the votes). But the fact that the scenario is open to abuse means it shouldn't be allowed. Flip a few other states from the other candidate and you've essentially won the election without still covering various parts of the country (let's assume all of New England votes like NY and CA and that is enough to put a candidate over the top). Do a more severe scenario where everyone is crammed into one state (let's use Texas) while leaving one person behind in every state. Texas would get 73% of the EC votes. Is that fair in your eyes?

Second of all, you're using the example of "these liberal cities wanting to tell us what to do". Well, I see your bluff and raise you one argument. Why are parts of sparsely populated states allowed to dictate what others want? You're bringing up the example of how NYC and LA are bad because they shouldn't wield more power than Loving County (the least populated county in the country). But I ask you: why would Loving County have equal power to say what the cities should do? An example: GOP politicians weren't satisfied with having gay marriage blocked in their states, they also sought to have it banned at the federal level. Now, if MA decided to allow gays to marry, why should someone from MS dictate what MA can and cannot do? When MA's population is larger than MS's, why should a lesser populated state have a say in the affairs of a more populated one?

Third, you have to decide who the president is supposed to represent. Does the president answer to the people or to the states? No, they're not the same. If the president answers to the states, then it means you're perfectly fine when your candidate wins to just care about the states that propelled him to victory (never mind the supporters who also believed in the cause in the other states the candidate did not win). So, in your "simplistic example", if the president was elected from just NY and CA, then he shouldn't give AF about the other states because he has no incentive. However, if you believe that the president answers to the people, then you accept the notion that every vote counts and that all citizens (not just the ones who voted for the winner) also need to be heard. In your "simplistic example", even though the president got 160 million votes from NY and CA, he still has to go out to the other states and see how this fireworks ban could affect them.

For this last point: there's evidence to suggest that Republicans favor the state approach (not the people approach). When Trump won, he called for "uniting the country", then launched his "thank you tour" only in states that gave him the EC votes. To this day, he has yet to hold a rally in a blue state in support of unity. His only visits to blue states are to speak to the military or a federal agency or (in the case of Maryland) to speak at CPAC. But Republicans somehow make a fuss when it's a Democrat in power and uses the same approach (heck, you have West Virginians grumbling about how the Democratic Party doesn't care for them anymore; why would they? WV didn't vote Democrat. The 189k blue voters were drowned out; why would a president Clinton help them?).

The people approach, however, forces the president to go to each state and hear the two sides of the story. Going to WV, for example, might have uncovered that a lot of those Republican voters would vote Democrat if the Democrat candidate had simply stopped to listen to their concerns. It could have happened that the mere fact of speaking face to face might have brought back a few of those Republican voters. But, because polls showed WV safely voting for Trump, why would Clinton have stopped there?

afcjets wrote:

Why would Wisconsin want to borrow from a metro area almost twice the size of their entire state population wise?

Because in terms of weight in the EC it gives WI greater influence by possibly adding one or two more members to its House delegation.

Hillis wrote:

Secondly, we're not talking about local or state ordinances here, we're talking about electiong the President of the ENTIRE United States. That's for all 50 states, every country and every town in the nation. This shouldn't be a contest between states; it should be who the people decide who will lead the nation. ALL the people.

If that's what you think you are living in the wrong country. There is a reason why the country is called the United STATES of America, rather than the United People of America, Democratic Republic of America or some other name. Our states are not simply administrative divisions, like the departments of France.

einsteinboricua wrote:

states can control their own affairs

You still have Dems proposing federal gun legislation and GW Bush's action against same sex marriage nationwide.

einsteinboricua wrote:

you're using the example of "these liberal cities wanting to tell us what to do". Well, I see your bluff and raise you one argument. Why are parts of sparsely populated states allowed to dictate what others want? You're bringing up the example of how NYC and LA are bad because they shouldn't wield more power than Loving County (the least populated county in the country). But I ask you: why would Loving County have equal power to say what the cities should do?

I wasn't, I was just making the point it's not all about population, it's about real estate too.

einsteinboricua wrote:

When Trump won, he called for "uniting the country", then launched his "thank you tour" only in states that gave him the EC votes. To this day, he has yet to hold a rally in a blue state in support of unity.

That would go over 1000 times worse than Milo trying to speak at Berkeley.

It is simply a choice made when the USA was formed. The electoral system puts more weight on the state compared to the federal government. Neither is unfair.

afcjets wrote:

You could flip the results in any close election by tweaking the borders in key states.

It still debunks the whole argument. Elections should be decided by people, not on their place of residence moving by a few hundred yards....

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

Neither is unfair.

A vote having almost 4 times the weight in one state than in another is not unfair?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Neither is unfair.

A vote having almost 4 times the weight in one state than in another is not unfair?

best regards
Thomas

Is the way Germany elects the Bundespräsident unfair? The US system makes sense if you look at the history of the country and even the basic concept of kind of having individual elections in each state, before the states then kind of vote the president, does not seem unfair, as within the state each vote counts the same.

seahawk wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Neither is unfair.

A vote having almost 4 times the weight in one state than in another is not unfair?

best regards
Thomas

Is the way Germany elects the Bundespräsident unfair?

Yes. Which is only acceptable because he has about as much power as the Queen.

The US system makes sense if you look at the history of the country and even the basic concept of kind of having individual elections in each state, before the states then kind of vote the president, does not seem unfair, as within the state each vote counts the same.

If you can lack Millions of votes behind and still win, the system is defective. State rights are well preserved by the Senat, the President is supposed to be for all Americans, not the minority leader. The Consitution starts with "We, the people", not with "US, the states".

best regards
Thomas

The US system is a mix between a direct election and a German style system where the parliament votes the chancellor. The number of electors from each state matches the number of representatives it has in both houses of Congress combined. And what happened with Trump is not new either, it happened in 1876, 1888 and 2000 too.

In the end it is not that much different from the German system when you just look at the first vote. For each constituency relative majority voting is used, which means the candidate with the most votes gets the mandate, who will then vote the chancellor in the Bundestag. The US system is just different by using states instead of smaller constituencies.

seahawk wrote:

T. For each constituency relative majority voting is used, which means the candidate with the most votes gets the mandate, who will then vote the chancellor in the Bundestag. The US system is just different by using states instead of smaller constituencies.

And then we add additional parliamentarians for the total parliament to reflect the outcome of the "popular" vote. E.g. we have a mechanism in place to have State representation and to stay close to the popular outcome. It still isn´t perfect, we still have the possibility of negative vote values, but the 2013 reform has migrated a lot of it and will be further improved. Probably not before another supreme court spanking, but it will be done.
So, what many US voters claim can only be solved with the electoral college can be solved differently as well.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

Is the way Germany elects the Bundespräsident unfair? The US system makes sense if you look at the history of the country and even the basic concept of kind of having individual elections in each state, before the states then kind of vote the president, does not seem unfair, as within the state each vote counts the same.

Each individuals vote would count more if you apportioned electoral college votes, like Maine and Nebraska do.

Kiwirob wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Is the way Germany elects the Bundespräsident unfair? The US system makes sense if you look at the history of the country and even the basic concept of kind of having individual elections in each state, before the states then kind of vote the president, does not seem unfair, as within the state each vote counts the same.

Each individuals vote would count more if you apportioned electoral college votes, like Maine and Nebraska do.

I am not saying the system is perfect, I just refuse the idea that Trump could be illegitimate because of loosing the popular vote, when the electoral system is in place since 1800 something and when it happened before.I find it even more strange, when people from other countries judge the old electoral system of the USA, when their own countries have much younger systems. Each country has seen different developments and evolutions of the electoral systems and imho the US system makes sense in the historic context and in the way how it evolved.

Could it be improved, yes and what you suggest would be a great step into the right direction.

Kiwirob wrote:

Each individuals vote would count more if you apportioned electoral college votes, like Maine and Nebraska do.

Maine and Nebraska's system is faulty. Take Nebraska for example. A candidate can win a state and not win all its EC votes. Heck, a candidate can be trounced in the popular vote for the state and if they win one district, they earn its EC vote. Nebraska and Maine, however, are small states and their districts are not as gerrymandered as in more populous states. Let's go to OH, MI, and PA, states that Obama won in 2012. Had the proposals to split the EC votes in each state gone through, Obama would have been left with a fairly small vote count from each state. PA's 20 EC votes would have been split by 7-13 in favor of Romney (Obama carrying the 5 districts that would have voted overwhelmingly Democrat plus 2 at large for winning the popular vote in the state)...now how it that fair or more indicative of how people voted?

If you're talking about proportion based on the popular vote in each state, I already ran the numbers and Clinton would have earned 265 to Trump's 261 (Johnson would have gotten the equivalent of 10 EC votes and Evan McMullin and Jill Stein would have each gotten 1). Clinton and Trump would have been below the magic 270, the question then is: which candidate would the House have chosen? Not an easy question to answer when Clinton earned more EC votes and more votes overall. Who would the Senate have picked in such an occasion?

Nebraska and Maine should just revert to a winner take all...or all states should adopt a proportioned system at once. What cannot happen is states changing their rules willy-nilly to benefit one candidate over another, like PA and MI GOP lawmakers were bent on doing.

Being from Maine myself, there is a massive difference between "southern" Maine, and "northern" Maine. With the southern half (which holds >80% of the population of the state) voting blue, and the northern half voting red. In the case of this particular election, I was ok with my states EC votes being split.

We also passed a referendum and will be using ranked-choice voting for the foreseeable future. It will be interesting to see how ranked-choice plays out.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Each individuals vote would count more if you apportioned electoral college votes, like Maine and Nebraska do.

Maine and Nebraska's system is faulty. Take Nebraska for example. A candidate can win a state and not win all its EC votes. Heck, a candidate can be trounced in the popular vote for the state and if they win one district, they earn its EC vote. Nebraska and Maine, however, are small states and their districts are not as gerrymandered as in more populous states. Let's go to OH, MI, and PA, states that Obama won in 2012. Had the proposals to split the EC votes in each state gone through, Obama would have been left with a fairly small vote count from each state. PA's 20 EC votes would have been split by 7-13 in favor of Romney (Obama carrying the 5 districts that would have voted overwhelmingly Democrat plus 2 at large for winning the popular vote in the state)...now how it that fair or more indicative of how people voted?

If you're talking about proportion based on the popular vote in each state, I already ran the numbers and Clinton would have earned 265 to Trump's 261 (Johnson would have gotten the equivalent of 10 EC votes and Evan McMullin and Jill Stein would have each gotten 1). Clinton and Trump would have been below the magic 270, the question then is: which candidate would the House have chosen? Not an easy question to answer when Clinton earned more EC votes and more votes overall. Who would the Senate have picked in such an occasion?

Nebraska and Maine should just revert to a winner take all...or all states should adopt a proportioned system at once. What cannot happen is states changing their rules willy-nilly to benefit one candidate over another, like PA and MI GOP lawmakers were bent on doing.

From a European point of view, a proportional system sounds like a very good idea. It would make every vote count, and hopefully increase voter turnout. In the current "winner takes it all"-system, what's the point in voting if you are a democrat i Texas or Republican i California?

afcjets wrote:

You could flip the results in any close election by tweaking the borders in key states.

Which is a key argument in why the Electoral College needs to go, leaving the election of the President & Vice President to the actual voters.

Calder wrote:

Being from Maine myself, there is a massive difference between "southern" Maine, and "northern" Maine. With the southern half (which holds >80% of the population of the state) voting blue, and the northern half voting red. In the case of this particular election, I was ok with my states EC votes being split.

We also passed a referendum and will be using ranked-choice voting for the foreseeable future. It will be interesting to see how ranked-choice plays out.

Ranked-choice voting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/m ... .html?_r=0

A great way to muck up elections even more, sounds like to me.

tommy1808 wrote:

The Consitution starts with "We, the people", not with "US, the states".

Better read it again:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Gosh, maybe it does have to do with states after all?

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The Consitution starts with "We, the people", not with "US, the states".

Better read it again:

As I said, it doesn't say "us, the states of the United states"

Gosh, maybe it does have to do with states after all?

Which is why you have a senate with two senators for each state, which makes sure that no decission can be made against the majority of states.

How does giving an incentive to a focus on the interets of swing states improve upon that, instead of eroding the effect?

Best regards
Thomas

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The Consitution starts with "We, the people", not with "US, the states".

Better read it again:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Gosh, maybe it does have to do with states after all?

It has to do with us as a nation, not as individual states. It doesn't say, "We, the people of the 50 seperate states that make up the United States". It says "We, the people of the United States."

That means all of us. That means whether we're from California, Wyoming, Mississippi, Rhode Island, or where ever else, we are, first and foremost, from the United States. And when we vote for President, we shouldn't be allowing a person, any person, from any party, who loses by 3 million votes nationwide to become our leader. That defeats the purpose of one person, one vote.

So, gosh, you're wrong, as usual.

EA CO AS wrote:

Better read it again:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You highlighted that wrong.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hillis wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The Consitution starts with "We, the people", not with "US, the states".

Better read it again:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Gosh, maybe it does have to do with states after all?

you're wrong, as usual.

Just like when I was wrong when predicting Trump would win? Or that your hatred would burn you up inside and eat you alive every day?

Yeah, don't bother answering. Your daily incoherent ramblings and unhinged vitriol speak for you.

DocLightning wrote:

If the IL-WI border were just a few miles south of where it is and if the FL panhandle were just a bit shorter, Hillary Clinton would have won.

The game board has been unchanged for decades.

No one prohibited Hillary Clinton from campaigning in Wisconsin. She didn't visit the state once during the general election. That failure is on her and her alone.

salttee wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Better read it again:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You highlighted that wrong.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

salttee, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "of".

Whilst more individual Americans voted for HRC, more of the United States voted for President Donald Trump.

For those who can't cope with such a system, who can't accept being part of a larger union, then North Korea might welcome you.

Jesse

Hillis wrote:

Ranked-choice voting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/m ... .html?_r=0

A great way to muck up elections even more, sounds like to me.

From the details given in the linked article this is the "Australian Preferential Voting System" which we have been using for about 120 years, it works just fine, although people have been arguing about for about 130 years and will continue to do so until the end of time. Despite this, the key point remains that you CAN NOT be elected without the support of at least 50%+1 of the electorate, which IMHO is the key point. In actual elections it is rare, but my no means unknown, for your preference votes to go beyond your second or third preference, in single member electorates. In multiple member electorates such as the Australian Senate where each state elects 12 senators, it can get hairy when there are many candidates. The most I can remember is about 15 candidates for each senate vacancy.

As a side benefit it turns election nights into a really good spectator sport.

Gemuser

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

For those who can't cope with such a system, who can't accept being part of a larger union, then North Korea might welcome you.

Jesse

Because the only alternative to a failing democracy, after all the ruling party can't get even it's own bills passt, is all dictatorship.
And not all those federal democracies that found ways to migrate the problem ......

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

FlyDeltaJetsATL wrote:

For those who can't cope with such a system, who can't accept being part of a larger union, then North Korea might welcome you.

Jesse

Because the only alternative to a failing democracy, after all the ruling party can't get even it's own bills passt, is all dictatorship.
And not all those federal democracies that found ways to migrate the problem ......

Best regards
Thomas

You should know how the hard right works now - with us or you're evil scum against us. No room for nuance.

afcjets wrote:

The argument against the electoral college is all votes should count equally. For the sake of illustration I am going to paint both a simple yet extreme and unrealistic example:

The United States population is 300 million where 80 million people live in NY, 80 million people live in CA, and the other 140 million live in the remaining 48 states. Fireworks are illegal in CA and NY but legal in all other states. NY and CA are so opposed to fireworks they want a federal law banning them. There is only an executive branch so all laws are done via executive order and the election comes down to this one issue.

The Democratic candidate promises to ban them and the Republican candidate will allow the states to decide. The Democrat gets 100% of the votes in NY and CA or 160 million, and the Republican gets 100% of the other states or 140 million. Also let's assume California is only Los Angeles and NY is only NYC.

In this example, should the majority who live within a few square miles get to determine the laws of the entire land and determine that fireworks cannot by shot off in the 99.99% + part of the country they do not live in?

Why would one's residency have any effect on their decision power? If fireworks in your hypothetical situation are so bad that those half people in the country believe it's better to ban them then there are surely some reason behind that, and if the reason behind that is related to deep culture, political, economical and religious divide between them that part of the nation's residence think it is better to put something for everyone while others think it should not happen then probably they should part their way from being a single country.

Alaska have 700k people while Anchorage have 300k of it, and it's only natural for the 300k population in Anchorage to have more decision power on issues in the state. UK have 64M people while Scotland only have 5M so it is also natural for their opinion doesn't matter that much in brexit referendum, compare to 53M people living in England.