 
     |
| Is it time to replace Electoral College with popular vote? (Page 5/5) |
|
fredtoast
|
SEP 03, 07:56 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
This idea is put forward by people desperate to destroy the checks and balances built in to the Constitution.
The popular vote would shift all electoral power to large population centers, and strip all voice from the less populated states.
This idea is anti American, anti Republic and another attempt by Progressives to cripple our country.
|
|
This just is not true anymore because even the most red states have 40% or more Democratic voters. the days of certain states being 100% in favor of a certain position are long gone.
Land mass should not control voting value. One person = one vote. People who live in less populated states should not have votes worht more that people in highly populated states.
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Pay attention Ronald - We do NOT live in a Democracy! This is a Constitutional Republic!
|
|
A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, and since we can completely change anything in the Constitution, we don't live in a Constitutional Republic.
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
SEP 04, 12:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
...even the most red states have 40% or more Democratic voters. the days of certain states being 100% in favor of a certain position are long gone.
Land mass should not control voting value. One person = one vote. People who live in less populated states should not have votes worht more that people in highly populated states.
|
|
What you have apparently chosen to overlook is that Democrat voters tend to mostly live in the larger cities, while Republican voters tend to live in more rural or suburban areas.
It still comes down to the policies (and politicians) that work in/for large cities will be forced upon the people in the rural areas.
I (a transplanted suuburbanite) live on a farm. For a reason. I certainly don't want or need the restrictions - or the mindset - necessary for life in the city to have to affect me. It's nonsensical, unnecessary, and unnecessarily restrictive.
This is aside the fact that most politicians at the federal level are likely descended from wealthy "city dwellers", and are completely oblivious to "how it's done and how it really needs to be done" out in the country.
| quote |
A Constitutional Republic is a democracy, and since we can completely change anything in the Constitution, we don't live in a Constitutional Republic.
|
|
We can completely change anything in the Constitution?! Really?
That seems to be the Democrat mindset - or at least the wet dream.
In reality, it's very difficult - by design. Takes a huge majority of both houses of congress, or a Constitutional Convention, which I don't think anyone wants, if they think about it carefully enough.[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-04-2023).]
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
SEP 04, 12:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Raydar:
What you have apparently chosen to overlook is that Democrat voters tend to mostly live in the larger cities, while Republican voters tend to live in more rural or suburban areas.
It still comes down to the policies (and politicians) that work in/for large cities will be forced upon the people in the rural areas.
|
|
I did not "choose to overlook" anything. I just don't believe the votes of people who live in the country should count more than the votes of the people who live in the city.
one person = one vote
And as I pointed out before. Even the most red/rural state still only has about 40% democrats. When the Constitution was drafted a southern state might be 90% agricultural. That just does not exist any more. Even farm states have large industries and businesses that have nothing to do with agriculture.
All that being said I still am not screaming for the abolition of the Electoral college. I just oppose the "winner take all" policy. Many more people would probably vote in Presidential elections if they felt their vote might make a difference. I don't bother to vote in presidential elections anymore here in Tennessee because I know my vote won't make any difference. It does not matter if we get 35% Democratic votes or 45%. The winner still gets 100% of the delegates. If the delegates were split by percentage of the vote then I would be much more likely to vote.
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
SEP 04, 12:41 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Raydar:
We can completely change anything in the Constitution?! Really?
That seems to be the Democrat mindset - or at least the wet dream.
|
|
What is wrong with amending the Constitution? Do you not like having a vote to select your Senator? Are you upset that women are allowed to vote or that slavery is illegal?
| quote | Originally posted by Raydar:
In reality, it's very difficult - by design. Takes a huge majority of both houses of congress, or a Constitutional Convention, which I don't think anyone wants, if they think about it carefully enough.
|
|
Level of difficulty does not matter to the definition.
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
SEP 04, 10:53 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
I just don't believe the votes of people who live in the country should count more than the votes of the people who live in the city.
|
|
I don't care. People who live in the city should not be able to enforce their rules - or politics - on the people who live out in the sticks.
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
SEP 04, 10:56 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
Level of difficulty does not matter to the definition.
|
|
Nothing wrong with amending the constitution. But it doesn't need to be easy. The vast majority (see how that works?) need to be in favor of it.
Level of difficulty may not matter to the definition, at least on the face of it, but it certainly does matter to the outcome.
|
|
|
|