But I don't think that wealth should be constitutionally enshrined as deserving more influence.

I pay more taxes than he does.

So that doesn't work.

The Electoral College was designed specifically so that does not happen as some time majority rule means 3 wolves voting to eat the lamb.

The EC gets it right usually.

Except for 2 out of the last 5.

I also wish Gore had more fire in his belly and fought a little harder over it.

huge number of school age children and the religious right here getting to determine whose school books get published, you get our dumbed down text books for your kids. RW religious nuts in Texas are deciding what your kids get learn about the Holocaust and the Civil War. Do you want us Texans pushing our political agendas on you, too???

People can write, publish, and distribute educational material, which may or may not be actual dead tree textbooks, much more easily than they could twenty years ago.

Houston and Dallas". And every year and twenty years later the headlines around every election says "Democrats gain strength in Houston and Dallas".

We picked up enough seats that the Lege has to pay attention to us, but we still have a 100% GOP executive branch. And the seats on the school book committee are named by the asshole Governor.

We use dead tree books for 99% of our students and the state sets the curriculum. They pick the selection of books the schools get to choose from. Deviation is not allowed.

Here in Marble Falls the schools wanted to give a computer to each student. The taxpayer went nuts. The school board was changed at the next election. But $13 million for what was projected as a $10 million dollar HS football stadium passed overwhelmingly.

You really don't want our history books. They teach a section on creationism and have to refer to evolution as a theory, and say that the Civil War was about State rights - that slavery had very little to do with it. And the Holocaust? What is this "Holocaust" thing of which you refer.

Of course in the twenties black families were burned out and driven out over night in towns all around us.

This is what you're dealing with.

States elect their own Senators and Reps

That assumes that everybody every state votes the same way. That may have been moreso true during the country’s establishment.

I live in Florida. Hillary Clinton received no benefit from my vote or any other Floridians vote that threw their vote to Hillary.

Texas has Democrats. California has Republicans. Georgia has Democrats. New York has Republicans. I’d like to think that we want everyone’s vote to count and count equally.

I think if we keep the EC, at least do away with the winner take all system.

checkpoints between some states? Why aren't all state's state laws all the same? Why is there an Interstate Commerce Commission to deal with trade issues between states? Why are there trade issues between states? Have you ever heard of the fights between Arizona, California, Colorado, Mexico and various Tribal Nations over the Colorado River?

We aren't all the same. We all have different issues and interests.

Do you really want Texas's interest in tar sand oil from Canada and the Keystone Pipeline permutations to "trump" Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, N Dakota and S Dakota's interest in not having "petroleum" or what ever chemical nightmare that keeps it "liquid" spills over fields over one the largest freshwater aquifers in the US?

It works the other way, too. Contrary to what some may hear, Trumpolini's wall is not that popular here, especially the closer to the border you go. Why are a bunch of conservative yahoos from up north trying to foist their wall on us? AND in that we're the second most populated state we're going to pay more than forty-eight other states for a project that will impact us more than forty-nine other states. One we don't want.

My point is its part of the checks and balances that allow us not to become victims of what T Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority." For example: minorities get to vote regardless of how the majorities feel about it. Because we all have different interests and issues.

In these days of situational ethics we need to protect ourselves.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the EC.

There's only one office that uses the EC to a means of choosing someone. That one office doesn't really solve those issues, at least not by itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My point is that when you look at a macro or holistic view of Texas, its easy to point out Texas's interest in Canada's sand oil, but within the state, 40% of the people have no interest in sand oil. What about the interests of the 40%? The votes of Texas's 40% wouldn't really matter.

I'm just using this to paint a picture so don't my numbers as actual fact.

It assumes that everyone within the state has the same interests. Not everyone in Texas Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, N Dakota and S Dakota has interests in Canada's sand oil.

My overall question is what about the varying interests within the states.

the discussion evolved to an example of how two three states - specifically my state has influence in other states in other areas, specifically in education .... how about you read further up thread and work your way down.

My point is we can't allow the entire nation be wagged by a tail named Texas/New York and/or California and that the EC is part of that safe guard.

Higher population states would have no greater powers if the popular vote prevailed. Then it would be one man, one vote.

The EC is what gives states power. People in blue states who vote red have their votes disappear once the state is called.

Every single Texan will not vote the same way, etc.

The EC lets the swing states decide. Or a few people in the swing states decide, like last time.

One man, one vote is fair.

Each state voting is unfair to individuals in high population states, especially when the number of votes is not proportionate - each state has two senators who are included in the count, giving two votes that each state gets no matter how many voters it has.

There is no such election of the popular vote where big states would "decide." There were 120 million voters, even if all individuals in the three states mentioned voted exactly the same, they are not a majority. And Texas would have gone red.

And why should rural people have more of a say than urban people? That's the true result.

majority have a say on where blacks kids go to school? Why should the Supreme Court be allowed to over ride laws written by a majority Congress?

There is such a thing as state and local government.

I don't see how white majorities are able to dictate anything in particular about black schools - we have Brown v. Board of Education, which should make you less afraid about majority rule on anything since if a majority wants something unconstitutional, it won't fly. The question of the Supreme Court deciding which laws violate the constitution was settled at the beginning of the 19th century.

And by the same token, why should rural people decide urban policy?

I begin to see where rural people get the idea they are the "true Americans."

Those states popular votes would not add up to a majority and everyone in the states would not vote the same.

It is a outdated relic now and has been for some time. We need to elect our presidents with the popular vote. That vast swath of mostly empty states in the middle of our country hold to much power and the rest of us suffer the consequences. How many more tRumps can this country endure!!!!

Yea. I don't think that's what the founders were going for.

There are many different ways of electing a President and the electoral college is our current way now (and probably forever).

Id support making a change, but I wouldn't support changing so that money buys more votes.

Thats just me.

It was intended to give the minority an outsized influence on government, not empower them to be a majority. It was never intended that 30% of the population should control 50% of the senate.

In 2040 it is predicted that 70% of the population will live in just 15 states. That means 30% of the population will be electing 70 senators. That was never intended. The system the founders have created has been modified significantly since then and no longer bears any resemblance to the original concept.

now there are 50, possibly 51 soon. I'm sure the founders didn't want minority (so to speak) rule either. The system has been modified previously as well. It used to be that Senators were elected by each states legislature, not directly by the populous like it is now. A reapportionment of electoral college members more along the lines of the House of Representatives instead of the Senate would seem a good place to start looking....but great care must be taken to ensure that we don't end up with the tyranny described. Minority rights are important and necessary.

The one thing that cannot be amended about the Constitution is the representation of senators. About the only thing I can see is dividing up large population states into multiple states so as to increase the total number of states. Additionally, smaller population states (N./S. Dakota) be combined.

I'm dubious either of those things will happen.

It was supposed to represent states in the issues of them, not the people. That's what the house was for. I doubt the founders ever expected the amount of power and influence our federal government has.

It was meant to represent the states, but it wasn't envisioned to deliver this much power to such a small minority. When they started creating these huge states with no one in them, it never occurred to the congress at the time what they were creating.

We elect the senate and the president based on acreage, and as a result, in a modern urban society, idiots have more say than other people. The founding fathers were a bunch of elitist slave-owners with some remarkably good, and some remarkably bad ideas. Their original attempt at preventing the dreaded tyranny of the majority limited the vote to land owning white men. Their bad design of the senate has a block of states hardly anyone lives in controlling that chamber. The same bad design gives those same states not quite as much leverage in the presidential election.

So if a person contributes most to the economy then they should get more votes. And if a person is on welfare then their vote should be taken away from them. Did I get your theory right?

Some States are favored with more electoral votes under the current system by some wacko calculation. I am being a bit facetious in adding more clout to States that contribute more to the general national economy and less to States that take more than they give.
Has nothing to do with individual wealth.

That would mean the states with a lot of rich people would be able to dump on the states with a lot of poor people.

Most people that lived in poor states, that could afford to move to another state, would.

The results would be ugly.

Those States that refuse to educate their citizens end up with more electoral clout. Their under educated citizens seem to choose candidates that do not have the national interests at heart.

You say you want to live in a nation where the majority rules, but you're not arguing for that.

You're arguing for a system where the "rich" states have more voting power than the "poor" states.

If we are going to base our voting power on how much we contribute to the economy, why draw the line at the state level?

Why not drill all the way down to the individual level, and say that individuals that contribute more to the economy get more votes than the people that contribute less?

I'm sure (hope) that you would agree that that would be a really bad idea.

Sorry for not making my sarcasm clearer. I am, as you indicate you are, a strong believer in one person one vote and majority rule.

I loathe when somebody tries to make sarcasm 'clear'.

I'm the one that didn't get it. The fault is mine.

There isn't any way you are going to get 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to vote for that change and 3/4 of the states.

How about we just abolish the entire shirt-show and conduct a direct popular election of the president?

Why is this even an issue?

You want a nation where the majority rules, that is how it can be done for the presidential election.

Oh and it should be some form of instant runoff so that nobody can win without 50%+1 or more votes.

I was throwing out the idea to see if anyone could see how it parallels the current system in a manner that favors the other side in the same way.
Popular vote for the President should be the first order of business for a Progressive legislation.

when the constitution was written, the population disparity between the colonies was at most 15%.

Now we have states like California with 35 million people while states like Montana and Wyoming have less than a million.

This should be addressed rather than economics.

I think it should be one extra EC vote for every million of population over the average population of states.

The electoral college was designed to protect slave holding states. The first idea proposed at the constitutional convention for electing the president was by direct popular vote. the southern states objected. They objected because although they were nearly as populated as the free Northern States, many more of their inhabitants were denied the franchise. The Electoral college was chosen as a mechanism to protect the slave-holding, franchise-denying South from the electoral weight that free states, that were also less stingy with the franchise, would otherwise have.

Moreover, the electoral college was never ever conceived as a measure of the popular will. Indeed, there is NO requirement whatsoever in the Constitution
that a state even hold an election among its citizens to choose its electors to the electoral college. It wasn't until 1876 that all states even did so. According to the constitution a state may choose its electors in anyway the state legislature thereof sees fit. In the first several decades after the constitution was enacted, legislatures chose their electors in all sorts of different ways.

Moreover, the electoral college was originally envisioned as a deliberative body of wise men, who, in their wisdom, would see to it that person chosen president would serve the constitution and the national interest. In particular, it was never ever envisioned to be what it has gradually become a mere "vote weighing" system that operates mechanically and non-deliberatively to count the votes of some citizens more than the votes of other citizens.

With the rise of a de facto national plebiscite, we now have come to have a system in which we DO measure the popular will by voting in a de facto national election, but we allow a non-deliberative merely formal mechanism that was never intended to function that way to OVERRIDE the will of the people, as measured by our de facto national election.

It is an utter absurdity.

Did you know that you can actually win as little as 23% of the popular vote and still win the majority of the electoral college? Start with the smallest states, when each one by 1 vote, when enough electoral votes to get you 270 that way. Then the remaining votes will not matter. 23% of the popular vote will suffice to give you the presidency.

Do the experiment starting with the largest states. Win each one by 1 vote until you've won enough to give you electoral college victory. Now you'll need a whopping 27% of the total popular vote to secure you the presidency.

It's an ABSURD system. It ought to be abolished! Period!

It's still lame, don't get me wrong. Just not as egregious as I'd have guessed.

Then again that 4% represents an 8.8M vote difference, assuming 220M voters. Which is definitely larger the margin in most POTUS elections in the country lately.

It was a terrible system. You suggestion is equally as bad.

the President


It isn't going to happen though, and neither will any changes to the electoral college