Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by JCricket

Does the EC actually serve any purpose these days? I mean any real functional protection or safe guard? Does it somehow balance the vote/population ratio for the states?

Well, if not for the electoral college a handful of high density metropolitan areas would decide every election forever leaving the middle of the country really unrepresented.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Well, if not for the electoral college a handful of high density metropolitan areas would decide every election forever leaving the middle of the country really unrepresented.

And based on your argument the majority of our population is unrepresented.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by JCricket

I think I understand the reason why the electoral college was created and is used. It is to attempt to balance the "voting power" of one state against another. Is this correct? If I understand correctly it is to give states like wyoming or the dakotas a voice in the election. Without it, california and the other states would make their voice mute.

This doesn't make sense to me. Can someone please jump in and give a lucid explanation of the purpose of the electoral college?

I would have given the classic answer, the one that Alexander Hamilton put in the Federalist papers: it's a layer between the population and the presidency, there to guard against the presidency being captured by a demagogue able to inflame the electorate. But it looks like it's not going to work, for that.

But then something struck me, and I did a little looking into the makeup of the 1787 constitutional convention. I got some 1790 census data, did some arithmetic, and here's what I found out:



It turns out the constitutional convention was loaded in favor of the smaller states. And lo and behold, the electoral college functions to assure outsize influence to the smaller-population states. This year's results show it definitely works, for that.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

This is mostly common knowledge that most of the super delegates were in the tank for HRC even before the primaries started. They really did not want nor expect competition for Hillary and then Sanders showed up, an independent running in the Democratic Primary. Why they allowed him is still a mystery but it is quite possible that he gave the Democratic Party's primaries a sense of legitimacy. Here, from a progressive site which some of the bots may object to.


http://inthesetimes.com/features/sup...y_clinton.html

That didn't take very long. So much for Mark's experiment in civility.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by bobabode

That didn't take very long. So much for Mark's experiment in civility.

Your post made me laugh out loud.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Regardless of who's in power and who won, the Electoral College needs to go and the Senate needs to be proportion by population, the least populated states getting one ...

Regarding our being a republic of sovereign states, that was then and this is now. The Civil War set a precedent regarding holy state sovereignty.

Who says a state necessarily rates 1 senator? You might, just for a notional example, haven't looked at the populations, lump Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho together and just give them 1.

Then, BTW, do away with congressional districts and have all states elect all their representatives at large, by some proportional representation scheme....

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by bobabode

That didn't take very long. So much for Mark's experiment in civility.

The term bot was my exercise in civility, or would you like for me to expand?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Who says a state necessarily rates 1 senator? You might, just for a notional example, haven't looked at the populations, lump Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho together and just give them 1.

Then, BTW, do away with congressional districts and have all states elect all their representatives at large, by some proportional representation scheme....

Why not just get rid of the states?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Why not just get rid of the states?

Tradition. What I suggest is radical enough for one revolution. Maybe get rid of the states after another 200 years.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by nailer

Why not just get rid of the states?

How much of a problem is the differing voting laws and regulations in individual states contributing to the problem of holding fair elections?