On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 2:21:03 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 12/10/2016 6:38 PM, Wayne wrote:
On 12/10/2016 2:12 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Wayne" wrote in message
news On 12/10/2016 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:21:27 +1100, "Dechucka" wrote:
"RD Sandman" wrote

Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by
the
population of a state or a city rather than the country?

That's what you currently have in your POTUS election

The electoral college is essentially a mirror image of Congress - a
mix of all states equal and all citizens equal.

If you want to dump the college, let's dump the Senate too. Elect the
House by one nationwide popular vote.

No more chance for the "out" party to block, or at least moderate, the
actions of the just elected "in" party of the one and only legislative
body. Don't like it? Next election change parties. The next election
change parties. Elect the entire House and President at the same time;
get rid of any sort of flywheel effect. Whatever the low-information
sheeple want at the moment.

Instability squared.

Sucks if yours is the "out" party. Sucks since the rules will be
changed and your party will never ever be elected again.

The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes,
and they campaigned that way.

Dud system

Nope. The president of the states is chosen by the states. That's much
better than telling the small states to **** off during an election.

I've instructed you in this already. The electoral college does *not*
do anything to gain more attention for small states in presidential
elections.

Well, it's sort of halfway between. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, including both House and Senate representatives. The number of Senators is completely biased toward small states, but the number of Electoral College electors lies between the proportional representation of the House and the by-state bias for small states in the case of the Senate.

The effect isn't large, but as Alexander Hamilton said about the Senate, it's anti-republican -- only a little less so.

--
Ed Huntress

On 12/20/2016 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 2:21:03 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 12/10/2016 6:38 PM, Wayne wrote:
On 12/10/2016 2:12 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Wayne" wrote in message
news On 12/10/2016 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:21:27 +1100, "Dechucka" wrote:
"RD Sandman" wrote

Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by
the
population of a state or a city rather than the country?

That's what you currently have in your POTUS election

The electoral college is essentially a mirror image of Congress - a
mix of all states equal and all citizens equal.

If you want to dump the college, let's dump the Senate too. Elect the
House by one nationwide popular vote.

No more chance for the "out" party to block, or at least moderate, the
actions of the just elected "in" party of the one and only legislative
body. Don't like it? Next election change parties. The next election
change parties. Elect the entire House and President at the same time;
get rid of any sort of flywheel effect. Whatever the low-information
sheeple want at the moment.

Instability squared.

Sucks if yours is the "out" party. Sucks since the rules will be
changed and your party will never ever be elected again.

The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes,
and they campaigned that way.

Dud system

Nope. The president of the states is chosen by the states. That's much
better than telling the small states to **** off during an election.

I've instructed you in this already. The electoral college does *not*
do anything to gain more attention for small states in presidential
elections.

Well, it's sort of halfway between. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, including both House and Senate representatives. The number of Senators is completely biased toward small states, but the number of Electoral College electors lies between the proportional representation of the House and the by-state bias for small states in the case of the Senate.

The effect isn't large, but as Alexander Hamilton said about the Senate, it's anti-republican -- only a little less so.

My point is that the electoral college doesn't provide any incentive for
candidates to campaign in small states that doesn't already exist. The
candidates campaign mostly in swing states, and most of the swing states
aren't particularly small. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are
all in the top 10 states by population. And *within* those swing
states, candidates focus mostly on the population centers and their
close suburbs. Candidates campaigning in Michigan aren't going to the
upper peninsula - they campaign in Detroit and Grand Rapids. The notion
that the electoral college pushes candidates to campaign in "rural"
areas is complete malarkey.

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 3:07:01 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 12/20/2016 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 2:21:03 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 12/10/2016 6:38 PM, Wayne wrote:
On 12/10/2016 2:12 PM, Dechucka wrote:

"Wayne" wrote in message
news On 12/10/2016 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 07:21:27 +1100, "Dechucka" wrote:
"RD Sandman" wrote

Do you think that all things in government should be controlled by
the
population of a state or a city rather than the country?

That's what you currently have in your POTUS election

The electoral college is essentially a mirror image of Congress - a
mix of all states equal and all citizens equal.

If you want to dump the college, let's dump the Senate too. Elect the
House by one nationwide popular vote.

No more chance for the "out" party to block, or at least moderate, the
actions of the just elected "in" party of the one and only legislative
body. Don't like it? Next election change parties. The next election
change parties. Elect the entire House and President at the same time;
get rid of any sort of flywheel effect. Whatever the low-information
sheeple want at the moment.

Instability squared.

Sucks if yours is the "out" party. Sucks since the rules will be
changed and your party will never ever be elected again.

The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

Both parties knew that the winner is determined by electoral votes,
and they campaigned that way.

Dud system

Nope. The president of the states is chosen by the states. That's much
better than telling the small states to **** off during an election.

I've instructed you in this already. The electoral college does *not*
do anything to gain more attention for small states in presidential
elections.

Well, it's sort of halfway between. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress, including both House and Senate representatives. The number of Senators is completely biased toward small states, but the number of Electoral College electors lies between the proportional representation of the House and the by-state bias for small states in the case of the Senate.

The effect isn't large, but as Alexander Hamilton said about the Senate, it's anti-republican -- only a little less so.

My point is that the electoral college doesn't provide any incentive for
candidates to campaign in small states that doesn't already exist. The
candidates campaign mostly in swing states, and most of the swing states
aren't particularly small. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are
all in the top 10 states by population. And *within* those swing
states, candidates focus mostly on the population centers and their
close suburbs. Candidates campaigning in Michigan aren't going to the
upper peninsula - they campaign in Detroit and Grand Rapids. The notion
that the electoral college pushes candidates to campaign in "rural"
areas is complete malarkey.

Yeah, I believe that's accurate. My objections to the system are, first, that the state borders are historical curiosities that don't correspond to some uniform interests within each state's borders; and, second, that the system violates all republican principles of equality -- one person, one vote for representatives.

--
Ed Huntress

"And where else will [we]... find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.