6 out of 7 (political)

[BackInTex]

Nope, the difficulty of travel in among the 13 states was not a basis for The Great Compromise

I never said it was, but I do think that the decision of how much power to allocate to the states vis-à-vis the federal government was influenced by what the founders knew was the difficulty in getting people in one central location and communicating back and forth over hundreds of miles effectively. Other republican governments of the era, like Britain and the First French Republic were much more concentrated geographically and never wound up with anything approaching the systems of states we have here.

Seriously? That is your reasoning for why we have states? It has nothing to do with the fact there were separate colonies, each independent and autonomous (at least from each other)?

[BackInTex]

If everyone's vote can't count the same towards a national election, the entire voting process is a farce....

lb13

There are a lot of voting systems set up similarly. It is only a farce if the votes are not protected (i.e. no fraud or dilution by non-owners) and the voting and counting are administrated per the known "going in" rules.

For instance, in a typical corporation stockholders' votes are equal on a per share owned basis rather than how much they paid and actually invested into the company basis.

Homeowner association votes are typically 1 vote per property or lot, regardless of the size of the lot or the number of people living on the lot.

Its all fair and equitable as long as the rules are in place and everyone knows them going in.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Can we all agree that an Article V constitutional convention is due?

Oh hell no! That would be total chaos.

I concur. My understanding (likely wrong) is if they states call for a new Constitutional Convention, the whole thing is up for rework, not just one section.

But Times have changed!

Why am I not surprised by this response?

[littlebeast13]

If everyone's vote can't count the same towards a national election, the entire voting process is a farce....

lb13

There are a lot of voting systems set up similarly. It is only a farce if the votes are not protected (i.e. no fraud or dilution by non-owners) and the voting and counting are administrated per the known "going in" rules.

For instance, in a typical corporation stockholders' votes are equal on a per share owned basis rather than how much they paid and actually invested into the company basis.

Homeowner association votes are typically 1 vote per property or lot, regardless of the size of the lot or the number of people living on the lot.

Its all fair and equitable as long as the rules are in place and everyone knows them going in.

Sigh....

I guess this makes me even now. A few years ago I tried to express my disgust here over something that liberals hold dear, and got every apples vs. oranges comparison they could come up to tell me why I was wrong and to protect what they hold dear. Now I'll get it from the conservatives over the Electoral college. This is why partisan politics fucking sucks... nobody wants to see what's outside of their blinders...

Maybe sometime before I die, I'll get to cast a meaningful vote for President. But until then, I guess I have a pretty large stable of fictional characters to keep writing in.....

lb13

[BackInTex]

If everyone's vote can't count the same towards a national election, the entire voting process is a farce....

lb13

There are a lot of voting systems set up similarly. It is only a farce if the votes are not protected (i.e. no fraud or dilution by non-owners) and the voting and counting are administrated per the known "going in" rules.

For instance, in a typical corporation stockholders' votes are equal on a per share owned basis rather than how much they paid and actually invested into the company basis.

Homeowner association votes are typically 1 vote per property or lot, regardless of the size of the lot or the number of people living on the lot.

Its all fair and equitable as long as the rules are in place and everyone knows them going in.

Sigh....

I guess this makes me even now. A few years ago I tried to express my disgust here over something that liberals hold dear, and got every apples vs. oranges comparison they could come up to tell me why I was wrong and to protect what they hold dear. Now I'll get it from the conservatives over the Electoral college. This is why partisan politics fucking sucks... nobody wants to see what's outside of their blinders...

Maybe sometime before I die, I'll get to cast a meaningful vote for President. But until then, I guess I have a pretty large stable of fictional characters to keep writing in.....

lb13

The Electoral College is not partisan. Its part of the Constitution written at a time where the current political parties did not exist.

I don't think blinders are an issue here. I can see why some think the Electoral College is unfair, but it is they who can't see beyond their own voting interests, in my opinion. It is a great system accounting for shifting populations while also protecting individual states.

[silverscreenselect]

Nope, the difficulty of travel in among the 13 states was not a basis for The Great Compromise

I never said it was, but I do think that the decision of how much power to allocate to the states vis-à-vis the federal government was influenced by what the founders knew was the difficulty in getting people in one central location and communicating back and forth over hundreds of miles effectively. Other republican governments of the era, like Britain and the First French Republic were much more concentrated geographically and never wound up with anything approaching the systems of states we have here.

Seriously? That is your reasoning for why we have states? It has nothing to do with the fact there were separate colonies, each independent and autonomous (at least from each other)?

No, it's my suggestion as to the reasoning behind why the states have so much power vis-à-vis the federal government. Great Britain consists of four formerly independent countries, but England, Scotland, Wales and what's left of Ireland have never had that much autonomy. Those who wanted a stronger federal government were aware that the states as a practical matter had to have a great deal of authority back then in order to govern effectively. Now, when we can get from one end of the country to another in a half day and communicate in less than a second, there's not nearly that much need.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

No, it's my suggestion as to the reasoning behind why the states have so much power vis-à-vis the federal government. Great Britain consists of four formerly independent countries, but England, Scotland, Wales and what's left of Ireland have never had that much autonomy. Those who wanted a stronger federal government were aware that the states as a practical matter had to have a great deal of authority back then in order to govern effectively. Now, when we can get from one end of the country to another in a half day and communicate in less than a second, there's not nearly that much need.

That grumpy old Mr. Chesterson said you should know why the fence is there before you tear it down

[Estonut]

Now, when we can get from one end of the country to another in a half day...

You don't get out much, do you? Most of us would fly...

[Bob78164]

Ironically, a friend of mine was talking about this early Tuesday. The reason I say "ironically" is because he's a big Trump fan, and envisioned the Electoral College as part of the "rigged system" that would give Mrs. Clinton the win, even though Mr. Trump would have more votes from the people (it'll be interesting to see what he thinks now that the results are in).

Realistically, you're asking for a constitutional amendment that would have to be started by the group that benefited from the old system to change to a new system that doesn't benefit them. Human nature says that's not going to happen, ever.

I, for one, would like to see a popular vote decide it, if only because then someone in, say, Alabama or California might think their vote for a Democrat or Republican (respectively) might mean something other than throwing a pebble in the ocean. It also would get rid of the focus on just a few states and force the parties to go nationwide with their campaigning. But that's me. And I know it won't change in my lifetime.

Actually, I'm asking for the Interstate Electoral College Compact to be adopted by enough states to put it into effect. California has already done its bit.

In addition to the very real issue lb pointed out, the simple fact is that small states get power in the Electoral College that is disproportionate to their populations. That's because, while the electors assigned because of a state's representation in the House are roughly proportional to the state's population, each state, large or small, gets two "bonus" electors for its two Senators. Two extra electors in California isn't much of a difference. Two extra electors in Delaware triples its influence. --Bob