Posted on 09/02/2024 3:51:48 AM PDT by Words Matter
>> Electoral College should be at the county level, not the state level.
> Explain why, please.
The current system is adequate for blocking big population states (ex. California) from having too much say in the presidential election. Each state has a moderate degree of power, based on population, but the power is limited. This is the best thing about the current Electoral College system.
However, a state’s electors can be determined by a small number of cities — Illinois? Chicago decides. New York? NYC decides. Pennsylvania? Philadelphia and Pittsburgh decide. The big population centers within the state outweigh all other areas where normal people live. Due to the modern welfare state, the people in the cities (who are often either very rich or else very poor) really decide how a state’s Electoral votes will be distributed. (And this facilitates fraud within a small, well-controlled area.)
If the Electoral votes were counted by county, then the cities would suddenly have less political pull, and the rural areas would have relatively more political pull. (And fraud would be much more difficult over the full breadth of the state.)
I’d like popular votes within Congressional districts to decide who serves in the House. (Current system)
I’d like state legislatures to select people for the US Senate (The method prior to the 17th Amendment)
And I’d like the counties to select people for the Electoral College so that the President can be elected.
The People, The State, The Counties — each in balance.
Republicans would do much better if they refused to tolerate Democrat vote fraud.
The electoral college does serve as a firewall to limit the effect of vote fraud in California and Illinois on the national elections. They only have so many electoral college votes and cannot use their fraudulent general election votes beyond that limit to change the outcome of national elections.
A "national popular vote" would mean that fraud in the Los Angeles and Chicago elections would ensure Democrat Presidents for the remaining life of this country.
I get it. By why would a bunch of rich guys on the State Legislature get to choose their candidate for the U.S. Senate?
It was on its way out. At least now we get to choose the Senator directly.
Can a dweeb rage?
Mice timidly squeak, there ain’t enough there there to rage.
Congressional district level with two EC votes going to the statewide winner to represent the two senators.
Using Indiana as an example. We have 11 EVs, 9 congressional districts and two senators. In our case we would normally award 7 congressional district votes and the two senatorial votes to the republican instead of 11. However, while we’d lose two here, I’m guessing we’d gain some in CA, NY, NJ, MI, IL, etc., and that the republican would have a much better chance to win most years.
“undermines democracy’ MSNBC host Chris Hayes fumed”
Hey Chris, this is where you should finally learn that our government is NOT a democracy, but a constitutional republic.
Bill Clinton is proof that we need runoff elections ...
I think the concern is that Mark Zuckerberg or other interests outside the state may be able to sway popular votes within a state. The US Senator for the state may "owe favors" to people across the country. However, if the elected state legislators are choosing a US Senator to represent the interests of the state, then there is a good chance that the interests of the state may actually be represented.
I'm in MA. Does Elizabeth Warren care about MA? Not as far as I can tell. She's a Party activist. She's a national figure. She has an agenda she's working on, and it is not a MA agenda.
If the MA state legislature chose someone to represent MA in Washington DC, then there would be an expectation that the Senator would support MA interests.
It will be easier for Mark Zuckerberg to bribe the State Legislators.
AIN’T EDUCATION TODAY WONDERFUL????
“...the great Justice Jackson...”
Thank you. I never looked at it that way before but it makes sense.
“a wildly dangerous institution that undermines democracy”
Yes! Exactly! The institution was deliberately designed to address the failing of ‘democracy’, being mob rule. The 51% steamrolling over the other 49%.
So yes, it’s doing the job exactly as it was intended. Anyone actively trying to undermine it is trying undermine our Constitutional Republic and is a traitor.
These people want a Khmer Rouge “Year Zero”.
the way the presidential election is to give more states a say than just the big ones on the two coasts. Otherwise, we’d have to separate into small euro-sized countries.
MSNBC and the mentally deranged losers who work there are a threat to democracy.
You choose the senators and representatives in your your state. But you don’t trust them to pick a decent Senator for the fed?
Now what you have are the leftists in the cities picking them. They only pander to big cities. I’ve yet to see my two Senators anywhere near my little city.
Hayes was referring to former Justice Robert Jackson, who served decades before Ketanji “what is a woman” Jackson.
“Famous” Nate, who gave Trump a 2% chance of winning in 2016.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.