Connecticut Senate passes bill giving electoral votes to winner of pop vote
42 replies, posted
This has jack shit to do with the presidential election.
What the fuck does the presidential election have to do with state and municipal finances?
What I'm suggesting is federalizing large cities and give them electoral votes, including DC.
It's a middle ground without everyone fucking each other over.
You've thoroughly ignored two of my posts now.
Will you start answering my fucking questions?
The issue is small rural zones get a much bigger voice than the majority. Prime example is my state, majority of the population is in the city, but the districts allow the barely populated outskirts more pull in state governing. This means we get no say at all in our politics because all the blue is centered in one district which happens to be the most populated.
Because we should not be worrying over one racial demographic over the other. You just stated it yourself, did you not? Also, why the concern with racial minorities? I'm asking for federalizing of cities, and giving a proportionate amount of electoral votes for their populations, likewise for the rest of the state. This does not disparage minorities, and I'm sorta clueless on why you are trying to push minorities into this.
but why do any of this and not have a popular vote instead? unless you mean separate cities from states which is hilarious and is literally gerrymandering on a national scale.
I'm not sure what state you are living in, but the one I came out of, New York, has a great deal of the states voting areas put into Long Island/NYC. This isn't done for other populated cities within the state, and because of that, most of the elections/voting is controlled by NYC.
What the fuck? I said we shouldn't advantage any demographic over any other, that includes rural folks. Are you really that fucking bad at reading?
So you're saying we should make every electoral college seat in every state be given in proportionate amounts to the popular vote ? What the fuck is the point of that? Why not just go with the popular vote if you're going to make everything proportional, just with additional threshold effects?
What does this have to do with your earlier discourse about inflating the rural populations' voice? The solution you propose doesn't even do that! It's just complete nonsense.
then the cities would dominate the entirety of the EC:
http://tuftsenigma.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Guardian-US-results-graph-009-1050x717.jpg
http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/maps/US%20Population%20density,%202010.png
Major cities are almost always blue with a very select few exceptions, meaning the country would be an almost nonstop blue sweep for EC elections. The only reason republicans have any footing is because they district the majority of the population into one or two districts while taking all the other ones easily.
I honestly wouldn't favor going too the popular vote directly because no matter what it'll further the two party divide we currently experience. I'd much rather a removal of the FPTP system, replacing it in favor of proportional repersentation, and destroying the current issues involving non-registration and closed party systems that are prevelant across the United States.
Going straight into the popular vote system will leave us with consistent 50/50 splits with a 3% ~ 5% deviation, meaning that a large number of the population will be upset with the results no matter what, and will not be able to have a chance for second choice. Basically, I'd really prefer a Parlimentarian Republic w/ proportional representation.
Kay, that's all. We good?
Quiz time! Which of these starts the preamble to the US constitution:
We the people
We the square miles
and if it's the first one, why on earth should population density affect a national vote like the presidential election? Not to mention density-dependent effects which you handily avoid talking about, like the flat number of senators per state.
City-states are a solution, but maybe not an ideal solution. It might help, but I worry it would just bring more division.
Based on the BMI reported by Trump's physician, the US arguably did elect half a candidate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.