Women's March

[K@th]

Everything you just stated is exactly why the EC needs to die.

I'm not convinced either way, because both sides have merit.

Nine states have half the population, leaving 41 states with the rest.

Do you want nine states to decide? Shouldn't everyone have a voice, no matter how small?

[Ex-California]

There's no reason for geographical distinctions for a federal office. The half of the population in the nine states and the other half in the 41 states are all Americans first.

1 citizen = 1 vote. We're not under the Articles of Confederation anymore.

[K@th]

Like I said, I see both sides. We are the United States, not the United People.

If we weren't about the states being united, we'd just nationally elect 100 senators and 434 reps.

The peeps tell their state how they want to vote. It's always been that way.

(Again, I'm just taking the opposition side. I can argue your side, too. I just don't think the answer is easy.)

[Speaker to Animals]

1 electoral vote per state.

Stop the bullshit. A candidate would have to campaign for the entire country.

[Fife]

Damn good deal!

I'm in.

I'm also willing to discuss repeal of the 17th and having the Senate elect the President as well. Two votes per state; "purple" states would go 1 vs. 1 lots of times. :goteam:

[Ex-California]

1 electoral vote per state.

Stop the bullshit. A candidate would have to campaign for the entire country.

Why even do that? Get rid of another layer and go 1 citizen = 1 vote

[boethius]

Instead it let a minority of the population control what the majority wanted. My preferred candidate won, but its on a technicality. There's no way I will ever support a disenfranchising joke like the Electoral College

I really think it's disingenuous to call the EC a technicality. Do you really believe either of them would have campaigned the same wsy if the goal was popular vote?

How many people didn't bother to vote because their preferred candidate didn't stand a chance in their state? How many stayed home because there was no chance of their preferred candidate losing their state?

People often vote/don't vote because their vote doesn't matter, in their state. If popular vote was the goal, different people would come out to vote.

Thank you.

The rules of the game have been known for 200 years, and hugely influence campaigning. Which is why it's mind boggling that Hillary didn't campaign in the upper Midwest after seeing how well Trump and Bernie did there in the primaries.

This is no different from a sport where points scored =/= winning games. For example, tennis. You can score more points in a tennis match and still lose. You can claim all you want that you're a better player for winning more points, but the other person still gets the trophy.

Hell, the Indians tied the Cubs in points scored during the World Series, but if you look for a World Series trophy in Cleveland, you will be unsuccessful.

[Speaker to Animals]

1 electoral vote per state.

Stop the bullshit. A candidate would have to campaign for the entire country.

Why even do that? Get rid of another layer and go 1 citizen = 1 vote

Because then your state, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas would run the federal government, and the rest of America would be disenfranchised.

It would be better to just secede at that point, since most of America would have no voice at all.

[boethius]

As to the Women's March.... I haven't seen so many middle class white women that upset since Starbucks ran out of pumpkin flavor lattes.

Clearly, something must be done.

[Xenophon]

1 electoral vote per state.

Stop the bullshit. A candidate would have to campaign for the entire country.

Why even do that? Get rid of another layer and go 1 citizen = 1 vote

It seems you're willfully blind to the fact that there are competing interests between rural and urban areas. Are the rural areas not deserving of equal representation?