Electoral College (and the Senate) are the obsolete vestiges of an archaic system
Chris Hayes:
Queens has more people than SIXTEEN states, fyi.
@jonathankoren
And bizarrely, this very point is used to justify the electoral college. At least they’re giving up all pretext of democracy.
[twitter.com]
Twitter:
This is the argument I will never understand. "4.3 million registered voters here might have more say than 3.4 million voters there!" Well...yes. Because...math.
LA County has more people than 42 states
And Puerto Rico has more people than 21 states have.
Bonus FYI.
Yup — but that’s requires a different discussion, since there is not yet a clear consensus for statehood in Puerto Rico. There has not been a bona fide plebiscite on the issue — in which all ???? parties & the Congress participated — in over a quarter century, since 1993. (1/2)
I’d love the additional (likely D-leaning) Senators, House seats & EVs. What I wouldn’t love is a presumptuous neocolonialist drive for statehood not backed by a popular consensus. The FALN & Macheteros are dormant, if not entirely dead. They should stay that way. (2/2)
It has two international airports so I’d argue it’s the other four boroughs that are flyover ??
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.One person, one vote. If you are not electing the person the majority of people voted for, you really can't call yourself a democracy. In Senate races, cities have more votes than small towns, and yet whomever gets the most votes wins. There is no difference. The Electoral College must go!
Sticks48
Level 9
June 26, 2019
1
The population of North Dakota is 760,000. The population of California is 39,500,000. Both states have equal representation in the Senate. Another example of minority rule.
rogueflyer
Level 8
June 26, 2019
1
Why are they assuming that all of the 4.3m in Los Angeles would be wiping out all 3.4m in Colorado? You can still vote however you want no matter what state you live in...people are still going to vote their party/candidate no matter where they live...now, you practically have to find a place to live and vote that will have the majority of same party voters so your electorate will vote your direction...it is insane...I used to be in favor of the electoral college but times have changed...we can live where we want, and states take care of most regional issues, ie. rural vs. urban issues....
thinktwice
Level 8
June 26, 2019
2
I agree: the argument in the post is specious. You have to assume that everyone in Los Angeles County votes the same. Clearly a vapid proposition. And, there is only a weak correlation between the EC and the Senate. Remember that the original idea for the US was a confederation of independent States. Until the Civil War, the term was plural: the United States “are.” It was only after the war that people began to say the United States “is.”
@Rghurst We have seen so much more gerrymandering to take advantage of the electoral college system as well...it might have made sense but after 200+ years, the population and the mix have changed...the argument that small rural areas will be out voted by huge metropolitan areas is really one of reality...where you live reflects what your concerns and needs are, so why shouldn't more of those be met instead of allowing the minority to be in control? I empathize with it, but as I stated, states are able to handle regional and local concerns better...the federal government needs to attend to policies that affect MOST of us...military, taxes, social security, education...
@Bobby9 Not sure I understand what you are trying to say...what is 51% necessary for? I made no analysis...it would take too long and be too boring...
1.detailed examination of the elements or structure of something.
"statistical analysis"
@Bobby9 what a cop out...just tell me what the 51% is...you accuse me of doing something and don't allow a rebuttal?
@Bobby9 You totally misunderstood...I refrain from going into complete analysis mode because I am a statistical analyst...You used the words "false analysis" and I had no idea what you were trying to say...I am trying to reach out a hand and you are slapping it away...so be it...your comment was not clear and I was trying to make sense of it so I could respond...can you try again without such hostility?
"You give a false analysis. Voting as a block is not at all necessary, only 51% is necessary." I am trying here....
@Bobby9 thank you...
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.