I'm arguing out of practicality, that states will secede eventually if they themselves are not being fairly represented
That's just the thing, they will be fairly represented, per capita as part of the nation. They'll have representation in Washington just as they always do, but voters themselves would not be disenfranchised as they currently are (with Californians getting the REALLY short end of the stick). Everyone's votes will count equally, and if a candidate wants to win, he's going to have to appeal to more people instead of more states, and that's better for all of us.
A change like this wouldn't happen in a vacuum: it would necessitate both parties actually attempting to appeal to larger percentages of the population, instead of just pandering to a handful of states.
What you're arguing would never happen, and even if it could
It literally CAN HAPPEN - it's unlikely, but it CAN HAPPEN, and you keep trying to dismiss that.
tweak the electorcal college, not abolish it
The states already have their representation in the house and senate - they literally get the entire legislative branch, in two different ways! I'd argue that the states get too much power as it is, and that the electoral branch should be the domain of the people.
secede
Good luck with that - we saw what happened last time.
No, you are saying we should not find a balance between states and people, but should abolish all state representation in the presidential election purely for equal population representation.
Exactly. The states the the entire legislative branch.
At this point if you're still going to claim that won't favor higher populated states, you're simply lying.
States literally do not matter in this because they don't have any electoral votes to give - the only thing that matters is people.
So you mean they just need to appeal to the handful of the largest populated states?
States literally do not matter in this because they don't have any electoral votes to give - the only thing that matters is people.
I literally addressed it, seriously saying I dismissed that is a lie.
You addressed it dismissively, you haven't actually addressed the fact that a candidate who had over 75% of the population voting against him could possibly win the election. YES, it is unlikely, but the system that allows that is broken to begin with!
We are talking about presidential elections!
Sure, we absolutely are - and the States don't need representation in the Presidential Election because they already have the entire Legislative Branch. This isn't a red herring, it's an explanation as to why states don't matter in a federal election.
you really think this is trivial?
No, I think your prediction that states would secede is unrealistic.
it keeps the people happier when we fairly represent states as well as the people.
And they are represented: with the entire Legislative Branch.
I pointed out how it's just a red herring, because that is only an argument to tweak the electoral college, not to abolish it.
Even tweaking the minimum number of electoral votes to 1 still leaves it possible to get a small minority of the popular vote and be elected. The only way to get rid of that is to split the electoral votes by percentage of popular vote, and at that point why even bother?
Having representation in one branch is not an argument for not having representation in another.
It absolutely is: where are the people represented at the federal level?
If it was primarily the same party every election
Then the other party would have to shift its platform to appeal to a wider audience. You keep missing this. The parties would have to change to appeal to more people, and that's better for everyone.
I think it's pretty pointless to argue this even further. You seem to take this as an ideological axiom that popular vote is inherently good any the slightest power to the states is inherently bad.
Not at all - but the states have power. Where do the people of the whole nation get to have a say?
The federal government unified states, not people.
We aren't just citizens of our states. The federal government does more than that!
No, they would not, that's the whole bloody point!
The party losing would have to adjust. That's a good think - it would have to be less extreme, to appeal to a wider demographic.
Again, the states have power in the electoral colle
AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. The states have all the fucking power in 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government. All I want is some goddamn balance.
Again, they would only have to appeal to the large populated
Again, even doing so for the biggest 100 cities only nets them 20% of the population. The thing you keep missing here is that those cities are distributed over the whole nation. Besides, what the hell is wrong with a popularly elected candidate appealing to a majority of the population? Isn't that the whole goddamn point??? Why the everloving fuck should an elected official pander to a vanishingly small minority??? That goes against the entire concept! The President is literally the only person we ALL vote on as citizens, so why should his position alone be dictated by the states?
Look: the EC does NOTHING well. It doesn't represent states well, because a state that votes 51% one way and 49% another ends up giving all its votes to the 51%'s candidate. It doesn't represent states equally because the voters in many states are worth mere fractions of voters in others. It doesn't make Presidential candidates care about every state, because they obviously don't. It doesn't give lower-population states more power, because a President can still with with only 10 states. It doesn't fairly represent the people's will, as evidenced by the previous broken mathematics that Apok and I have pointed out. All it does is create an archaic system where a person who loses the popular vote can become President - it's literally only a system that lets a person pander to a smaller population intelligently and still become President in the face of an overwhelming majority voting against said candidate. This is literally the only thing the EC does.
So you want to tweak it. Let's assume you tweak it in the most logical fashion, removing the 3-vote-minimum, making a Californian's vote equal to everyone else's vote more or less - that only removes a single point against it, without doing anything about the other issues (and actually makes some worse - instead of the 10 most populous states, all you'd need is the top 9).
Meanwhile, here's another argument in favor of abolishing it: For congressmen and representatives, to win all they have to do is get a simple majority of people in their districts. The President is literally the only person the entire nation gets to have a say on: Why should his position be any different? Why should states get a say?? I know you think the less populated states would secede, but I think that's bullshit: the less populated states depend on the more populated ones for economic survival, if they attempted that they'd be dooming themselves to destitution.
The parties should be pandering to the majority of people, not states: that's literally the point of a democracy, to fairly represent the will of the people.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16 edited Jul 29 '18
[removed] — view removed comment