quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Well, a shift to election by popular vote would be one way for California, Illinois, and New York to make sure the rest of the country takes care of our needs...

It's funny, to me at least, that the OP only looks at this in terms of Republicans might react, and not how it would shove the shit that spewed endlessly from the left in the Bush years, right back down their throats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The needs of metropolitan areas should dwarf those of rural low population density areas. Those metro areas contain many times as many people and this country is supposed to by and for the people.

This is precisely why we weren't set up to be a direct democracy. The rights of the few are just as important as the rights of the many. the passing whims and fancies of the majority do not trump the rights of the few. Thus, we have government of the people, not government of the majority.

And, this is yet another reason why government should stay out of providing for one individual at the expense of another individual. It's not about putting the black man on a higher pedestal to make up for previous slights. It's not about putting women up on a higher pedestal. It's about us all being equal in the eyes of the law. While that might not happen everywhere, the proper solution is to change those areas where it isn't happening instead of changing everywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm not your conduit to yell back at Glenn Beck, Hillwilliam. Not oly do I not care for the prick, or his schtik, I don't contribute to his ratings or give a shit what he says on any matter. You post indicates you have no idea of my attitudes towards immigration in the United States.

Yeah, I'm a Republican in a state that almost always votes Dem in the electoral college. Oh well. There are plenty of other issues on the ballot, where my say might make a difference. I may, for example, vote for the slimy Dem in the Assembly race, just because it will be easy to get rid of him in two years, rather than having the even slimier Repub candidate sit up there for four, and then feel he's entitled to our state senate seat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Here's some thoughts about abolishing the Electoral College.
Electoral votes are assigned based on the total number of Reps (house and Senate) a state has.
House reps are based on the TOTAL population of the state.
Total population includes non citizens, illegals and others who are not eligible to vote.
Guess what? They are still represented and have a 'vote' because of the way the EC is set up.
Think about it. If you're a Republican in California, your vote for POTUS generally gets tossed into the shredder but hundreds of thousands of illegals and non citizens DO get a vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Where did I talk about rights? Anyway the rights argument is on my side. Why should my right to influence who governs this nation be less than someone in Wyoming?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I don't know that it's based on "Total" population. Does the Census count illegals and other non-citizens?

The gist of DomKen's ranting is the Senate's 2/state representation. The more populous states are getting shafted in per capita representation in the EC because of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just a random Republican in California...

The air in this forum would be a lot clearer if fewer libs watched Fox and thought it mattered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Where did I talk about rights? Anyway the rights argument is on my side. Why should my right to influence who governs this nation be less than someone in Wyoming?

How about the right to representation? That's really what you're peeved about. Do you have a problem that you only get 2 Senate seats while Wyoming gets the exact same amount? I'm going to assume you understand why that was set up that way. The EC prevents the big states from abusing their size against the smaller states. What would you do if I said it would be more appropriate to divvy up the EC votes according to surface acreage? Alaska and Texas would absolutely rule.

It's all about balance of power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Oh yeah. That's right. I do remember hearing that Beck had left Fox. Multiple screens, at your place now, huh?

Yeah. Representation is based on total persons, and once upon a time they played with that too, with another group that didn't have a vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: playfulotter

I rarely follow the political message boards here on collarme but this commercial I saw on TV here in California makes one wonder....I have become more Conservative as I have grown older but still vote mostly Democratic....Since I have seen this on TV I am sure it has been show on here before....but anyone with a brain has to think..wow...this is so true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYKAbRK_wKA

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Well, a shift to election by popular vote would be one way for California, Illinois, and New York to make sure the rest of the country takes care of our needs...

It's funny, to me at least, that the OP only looks at this in terms of Republicans might react, and not how it would shove the shit that spewed endlessly from the left in the Bush years, right back down their throats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I don't know that it's based on "Total" population. Does the Census count illegals and other non-citizens?
The gist of DomKen's ranting is the Senate's 2/state representation. The more populous states are getting shafted in per capita representation in the EC because of that.

I worked the Census in 2000. It counts everyone. Legal, illegal, prison population. Every person.
States with large numbers of non citizens have a disproportionate number of reps compared to their voting population.
Cali has 53 congressional reps for about 37 million people
If you deleted all the non citizens from the population this would reduce that total by 19%
My reference is below
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5989
This would strip about 10 electoral votes from California. Those 10 votes represent non citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I don't know that it's based on "Total" population. Does the Census count illegals and other non-citizens?
The gist of DomKen's ranting is the Senate's 2/state representation. The more populous states are getting shafted in per capita representation in the EC because of that.

I worked the Census in 2000. It counts everyone. Legal, illegal, prison population. Every person.
States with large numbers of non citizens have a disproportionate number of reps compared to their voting population.
Cali has 53 congressional reps for about 37 million people
If you deleted all the non citizens from the population this would reduce that total by 19%
My reference is below
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5989
This would strip about 10 electoral votes from California. Those 10 votes represent non citizens.

Didn't know that. Thanks!

quote:

That is simply not true. Without the electoral college every voters vote counts the same. With the college small state voters are far more valuable.

For instance a voter in wyoming is one of 565k (roughly) and decides the fate of 3 electoral votes while a I, a voter in Illinois, am one of 12.9M and decide the fate of 20 electoral votes. So around 25 times as many people are worth less than 7 times as many votes. How is that right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

There needs to be no change to the electoral college. Without it, you will have candidates load up on the big states and forget the rest of the states. I want a president that appeals to the greatest cross section of Americans (citizens, not illegals). We hear this "change it" nonsense from leftists when they are about to lose... like a broken clock, they can be right twice.