Not sure what the Electoral College has to do with race today.
You deem it disproportionate, I don't. We are a Union of 50 states and I think the Electoral College helps maintain some balance so that a large population in one area (as an example) doesn't have the ability to fully control something in another area. For example, if there we…
Not sure what the Electoral College has to do with race today.
You deem it disproportionate, I don't. We are a Union of 50 states and I think the Electoral College helps maintain some balance so that a large population in one area (as an example) doesn't have the ability to fully control something in another area. For example, if there were 200 million people that lived in Texas, I wouldn't want (in effect) zero say in a Presidential election, if I live in Alaska.
If one person one vote were practiced, there would be no need for the electoral college. This would require that the person who got the most votes would win. Sounds good to me.
I'm not sure I get your point. If the presidential election were a pure popular vote, then a vote in Alaska would count as much as a vote in Texas. Now, with most states firmly in one party's camp or the other, candidates only really worry about six or seven so-called swing states.
The point is that people in Alaska have more say in today's elections due to the Electoral College than they would under a pure popular vote system. We are a Union and the Electoral College gives each state a meaningful voice in the process.
Meaningful in what way? A few voters in a few states over ruling the majority means doesn’t say to voters their participation is meaningful — unless of course, they are willing to live in a country where that minority rules. And yes, this was compromise to get the slave states to sign on to the constitution. Now that our politics have changed, campaigns have computer driven get out the votes strategies, legislation is written based on computer algorithms to favor the majority state party we have an unintended consequence. Add to that the gutting of the civil rights voting act and other protections.
More meaningful in the fact that the people of Alaska have more influence under the current system than if it was only based on popular vote. Currently they get 3 of the 538 Electoral votes. The less populated states (with fewer Electors) get more of a say under the current system.
Why would the people of Alaska deserve more influence? Than voters in larger states? This larger influence idea is again the opposite of what you initially stated.
If that was the total goal, then the writers of the constitution could have devised the system where a limited number of people in each state could vote.
No, the POINT is that, per SCOTUS, the law is one person, one vote and has been for 60 years. Under the Electoral College, some people's votes count more than others.
Not sure what the Electoral College has to do with race today.
You deem it disproportionate, I don't. We are a Union of 50 states and I think the Electoral College helps maintain some balance so that a large population in one area (as an example) doesn't have the ability to fully control something in another area. For example, if there were 200 million people that lived in Texas, I wouldn't want (in effect) zero say in a Presidential election, if I live in Alaska.
If one person one vote were practiced, there would be no need for the electoral college. This would require that the person who got the most votes would win. Sounds good to me.
I'm not sure I get your point. If the presidential election were a pure popular vote, then a vote in Alaska would count as much as a vote in Texas. Now, with most states firmly in one party's camp or the other, candidates only really worry about six or seven so-called swing states.
The point is that people in Alaska have more say in today's elections due to the Electoral College than they would under a pure popular vote system. We are a Union and the Electoral College gives each state a meaningful voice in the process.
Meaningful in what way? A few voters in a few states over ruling the majority means doesn’t say to voters their participation is meaningful — unless of course, they are willing to live in a country where that minority rules. And yes, this was compromise to get the slave states to sign on to the constitution. Now that our politics have changed, campaigns have computer driven get out the votes strategies, legislation is written based on computer algorithms to favor the majority state party we have an unintended consequence. Add to that the gutting of the civil rights voting act and other protections.
More meaningful in the fact that the people of Alaska have more influence under the current system than if it was only based on popular vote. Currently they get 3 of the 538 Electoral votes. The less populated states (with fewer Electors) get more of a say under the current system.
Why would the people of Alaska deserve more influence? Than voters in larger states? This larger influence idea is again the opposite of what you initially stated.
If that was the total goal, then the writers of the constitution could have devised the system where a limited number of people in each state could vote.
No, the POINT is that, per SCOTUS, the law is one person, one vote and has been for 60 years. Under the Electoral College, some people's votes count more than others.
I believe the Electoral College is part of our Constitution. What does SCOTUS have to do with it?
If enough people/elected representatives agree with your view, there are legal ways to change our Constitution.
Personally I don't think it's broke.