Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

---

i know you don't. More people live in those blue areas than in the red, yet the electoral college has made it so that the person that received less votes has won the presidency twice in the last 25 years. I get why the system was setup how it was over 200 years ago back when the country truly was a bunch of independent states that happened to form a federal government. Thanks to the advancements made in transportation, people move all over this country now and most identify as Americans first more than citizens of a state. What other system of government that has elections has a chance for the executive role to be chosen by the person who received less votes?

Rocky, how many people do you think live in the 20 largest cities?

cajunaggie08 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

---

i know you don't. More people live in those blue areas than in the red, yet the electoral college has made it so that the person that received less votes has won the presidency twice in the last 25 years. I get why the system was setup how it was over 200 years ago back when the country truly was a bunch of independent states that happened to form a federal government. Thanks to the advancements made in transportation, people move all over this country now and most identify as Americans first more than citizens of a state. What other system of government that has elections has a chance for the executive role to be chosen by the person who received less votes?

---

And that that was the fiunder's intent, thst yhe large urban centers would not be able to run rough shod over the rural areas.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

---

i know you don't. More people live in those blue areas than in the red, yet the electoral college has made it so that the person that received less votes has won the presidency twice in the last 25 years. I get why the system was setup how it was over 200 years ago back when the country truly was a bunch of independent states that happened to form a federal government. Thanks to the advancements made in transportation, people move all over this country now and most identify as Americans first more than citizens of a state. What other system of government that has elections has a chance for the executive role to be chosen by the person who received less votes?

---

Because we are, at least still technically, a nation of 50 independent states (plus however many territories) and not a single voting unit. That is how it was designed, that is how it needs to be.

Otherwise - the east and west coast would perpetually run the country and we'd all have to endure the same idiocy that CA spews out left and right here in Texas.

The "popular vote" is nothing more than a media creation so they have things to talk about on election night. It means absolutely nothing, and should remain that way.

Aren't there more Republicans in CA than there are in TX? Doesn't seem like their vote for president currently doesn't matter.

DevilD77 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

---

i know you don't. More people live in those blue areas than in the red, yet the electoral college has made it so that the person that received less votes has won the presidency twice in the last 25 years. I get why the system was setup how it was over 200 years ago back when the country truly was a bunch of independent states that happened to form a federal government. Thanks to the advancements made in transportation, people move all over this country now and most identify as Americans first more than citizens of a state. What other system of government that has elections has a chance for the executive role to be chosen by the person who received less votes?

---

And that that was the fiunder's intent, thst yhe large urban centers would not be able to run rough shod over the rural areas.

---

They were also worried about the slaves in the south gaining voting rights and wanted a system of state appointed electors to help ensure the future slave voters didnt tip the scales one way or another. The government was set up so that the local leaders could have more say in who was president than the citizens.

who cares. the POTUS is the head of the executive branch, executing the laws passed by congress and affirmed by the SCOTUS. The POTUS should (and generally does) have little power over your life and yet people bluster about electoral college. Local elections still matter more

In the last election, only half the eligible voters participated so even the 'popular vote' is a minority vote as a representation of the country

Didn't you post a map of electoral results?



Why don't we look at a map showing the population density?

DevilD77 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

---

i know you don't. More people live in those blue areas than in the red, yet the electoral college has made it so that the person that received less votes has won the presidency twice in the last 25 years. I get why the system was setup how it was over 200 years ago back when the country truly was a bunch of independent states that happened to form a federal government. Thanks to the advancements made in transportation, people move all over this country now and most identify as Americans first more than citizens of a state. What other system of government that has elections has a chance for the executive role to be chosen by the person who received less votes?

---

And that that was the fiunder's intent, thst yhe large urban centers would not be able to run rough shod over the rural areas.

---

I like the idea from today's view, but strictly speaking, at that time the population was far more rural than urban. It basically kept the rural population from running rough shod over the much smaller urban population.

How much would 3 or 4 cities influence a national election using the popular vote?

cajunaggie08 said:

---

DevilD77 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

---

i know you don't. More people live in those blue areas than in the red, yet the electoral college has made it so that the person that received less votes has won the presidency twice in the last 25 years. I get why the system was setup how it was over 200 years ago back when the country truly was a bunch of independent states that happened to form a federal government. Thanks to the advancements made in transportation, people move all over this country now and most identify as Americans first more than citizens of a state. What other system of government that has elections has a chance for the executive role to be chosen by the person who received less votes?

---

And that that was the fiunder's intent, thst yhe large urban centers would not be able to run rough shod over the rural areas.

---

They were also worried about the slaves in the south gaining voting rights and wanted a system of state appointed electors to help ensure the future slave voters didnt tip the scales one way or another. The government was set up so that the local leaders could have more say in who was president than the citizens.

---

There also was the issue that the large urban areas and states with greater population at the time were in the north, and the southern states did not want to be controlled by the northern states without any representation.

The founding fathers understood the concept of the tyranny of the majority and were more concerned that all citizens get a voice in the government and that a strict concept of "majority rules" is ultimately unfair for those in the minority.

If civil rights advocates truly cared about gaining equal rights, they would be better students of the founding fathers and look less to philosophies that always lead to tyranny, such as Marxism.

Remove the Electoral College process and politicians will flood large cities with Pork Barrel spending like has never been seen. All to buy the votes of their citizens. At that time, you will see a true system of haves and have nots as you either live in the cities/region that elect the president, and all those other areas who just send in tax dollars.

Really would be a dystopian future.

dead said:

---

How much would 3 or 4 cities influence a national election using the popular vote?

---

Enormously. Re-read my OP for why.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

Quote:

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!

---

Apparently, you don't have a grasp of population maps.

---

i know you don't. More people live in those blue areas than in the red, yet the electoral college has made it so that the person that received less votes has won the presidency twice in the last 25 years. I get why the system was setup how it was over 200 years ago back when the country truly was a bunch of independent states that happened to form a federal government. Thanks to the advancements made in transportation, people move all over this country now and most identify as Americans first more than citizens of a state. What other system of government that has elections has a chance for the executive role to be chosen by the person who received less votes?

---

Know how I can tell you're not a Texan?

Advances in transportation don't change our form of governance. Fewer popular votes is immaterial.

It's not fair that our republic system of governance operates as a republic system of governance.