White Supremacist Trump Supporters Arrested for Threatening to Lynch Black Man

Dirt and trees are not people, and people who live in the same state are not a monolith.

 

Apparently, it's still 1850, and everyone in my state votes the same because we're all farmers and ranchers. We have to make sure the cows, chickens, and pigs are represented, too.

 

I can only assure you that I am not obsessed with you or impressed. You have an inflated sense of what you think you know. Plus, got to love the logical fallacy at the end. Tsk...tsk.

 

Perverts unite!

 

...yeah, e pluribus unum or some shit like that...

 

Your rationale sounds pithy but has its own inherent problems and seeds of discontent.

You get to a point where the vast majority of the nation might as well not bother voting because they have no say so in the Presidency. And we end up with a one party state where the Presidency is concerned and it is determined by certain liberal large population centers with little connection to the vast majority of the country.

 

Your use of the term "vast majority of the country", is interesting. Usually in this context majority means voters and people. Here you mean acres of land. It is very strange and anti-democratic to claim that land needs representation.

 

My state has close to a 50/50 split of people who lean blue and people who lean red. Because it leans a little red, the blue voters are shut out every presidential election. Those are millions of people who go unrepresented every four years. It has gotten to the point that voter turnout is lower among Democratic voters because they know that their vote does not count in presidential elections. Republicans just need to win by one vote, and all of Texas' electors will go to the Republican candidate. This is fine for a statewide race, the president represents the entire country, not a state.

Republicans only believe that land is more important than human beings because they have, in modern times, become a stronghold in the South and the plains states. Prior to that, Democrats were fighting for land to have more votes than humans. After George H.W. Bush, the Republican presidential candidate has only won the popular vote once, and he was an incumbent. If we stopped giving votes to land, and we stopped political parties from gerrymandering, the modern Republican Party would become a regional party. Republicans can't win without gerrymandering for Congress and discounting the votes of the majority of the population with the electoral college system.

 

They're operating on the outdated belief that there are urbanized states and agricultural states, and almost everyone within a state votes the same. This hasn't been the case for a long time. Even the agricultural states have major cities, and the vast majority of their residents are not in the agricultural industry. Now, the electoral college works to devalue the votes of the majority of the population that lives in major cities and suburbs.

They can't explain why approximately 45% of Texas votes should be thrown in the trash for a national election. The second most populous state, effectively, has almost half of its votes discarded because of the electoral college system.

 

The Electoral College was created to protect the voices of the minority from being overwhelmed by the will of the majority.
The Founding Fathers wanted to balance the will of the populace against the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the voices of the masses can drown out minority interests.
Same in GA, 49% of GOP votes discarded?
That's how the system works.
There is a process to ammed Constitution etc.
Why didn't Dems dome it so far?
There were at leat 700 proposed amendments to change, abolish electoral college.
I think founders brilliantly created the electoral college with all the pros and cons.

 

It doesn't matter which party is shut out; it's wrong to throw away that many votes in a national election. People who live in rural Georgia might have the same concerns as people who live in rural Iowa or rural Mississippi. People who live in the urban areas of Texas might have the same concerns as urban Virginia or urban Washington. Assuming that states are a monolith is outdated and silences millions of voices.

Additionally, since most states will stay on one side or the other for decades, presidential candidates spend a disproportionate amount of time campaigning in swing states. That is not a representative democracy. Only a handful of states decide the election.

 

Sorry Lerner, your tyranny of the majority story regarding the founding fathers' concerns is not true. You obviously have little understanding about American history.

Back in the 1780's there was no such thing as a democratic country or a democracy. All there really was was the history of ancient Athens (Greece) that had a democracy. The founding fathers didn't think that voting for a US President by individual people made sense. A national campaign and political parties had not yet been invented at that point. The thinking was that there would be many nominees to vote for and having multiple national votes to get to a majority would have not been practical. So the idea was that the electors would be voted on at the local precinct level. Those electors would then all go to Washington DC and vote for US President. The states were all closer in size back then than they are now and it was agreed that the number of electors per state would be equal to the number of house and senate representatives coming from each state. Political parties then formed pretty quickly in that early history. The first national campaign for President was run by Andrew Jackson (our seventh President). This was after he got "cheated" out of the 1824 election even though he had the plurality of electors after election day. Ever since then there has been national campaigns for President.