Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 20, 2017, 10:32:13 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  One State=One Vote
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: One State=One Vote  (Read 20765 times)
Psychic Octopus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9002
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2008, 08:59:54 pm »
Ignore

Wow, I thought we settled this at the Constitutional Convention. I say population, but I must say it is unfair.
Logged
WillK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1277


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2008, 09:33:31 pm »
Ignore

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.

 The Constitution does not start with  "we the states";  it starts "we the people". 
Logged
JAIL FOR FLYNN
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 79173
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2008, 10:54:39 pm »
Ignore

Interestingly Obama WOULD'VE won under this, he took 28 states + DC for 29/51.
Logged

Always will be the President to me:

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10072
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2008, 04:05:21 pm »
Ignore

I would support this system.
Logged

Tyrion The Unbanned
Ogis24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 424
United States
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2009, 12:09:11 am »
Ignore

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
Basically, this makes people in small states worth more than people in big states, and that's fallacious. It is ridiculous to give so much power to so little of the population. California and Alaska would be equal, even though California has 18 times more power than Alaska. People vote for the President, and they should, which brings me to the statement that the Electoral College should be abolished.
Logged

Join the WRP, the truly moderate party of Atlasia.
ottermax
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1439
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.52

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2009, 12:50:38 am »
Ignore

If the president had less power like a head of a council of states rather than holding executive power I think this would work. But then the United States wouldn't be a true country but more of a collective association of countries like the EU.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6747
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2009, 12:53:27 pm »
Ignore

Why should the tiny populations of Wyoming or Montana have as much of a say as New York and California? A state of about 500,000 should not get to choose the president with equal or anything close to equal power as  state of 19 million or more. In fact, the EV gives added influence to less populated states already. By setting the minimum at 3 per state, certain population ratios are already thrown off. How about more influence for population.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Sir Coffeebeans
coffeebeans
Full Member
***
Posts: 137
View Profile
« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2009, 01:57:10 pm »
Ignore

NO! In fact, I am willing to go the opposite way and abolish the electoral college. With one state, one vote policy, a person in Wyoming is worth more than a person in California, and that is just not fair. The electoral college is already skewed because of the minimum of 3 electoral votes, which I believe has already been pointed out.
Logged

Economic score: -3.35
Social score: -3.3

Coffeebeans for Pacific Senate
February, 2009
Another reason to get out of bed in the morning. Coffeebeans.
AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE!
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43658
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2009, 03:37:19 pm »
Ignore

Excuse me, but it's a totally crazy and anachronistic proposal : In the 21th Century, U.S. would become the only democratic State who totally ignores people's will Huh
Founding fathers wanted to give an equal importance to each States, but also consider demographic data. To ignore that would be ridiculous.
Logged

Our numbers are dwindling. Our words are confused.
Some of them have been twisted by the enemy
until they can no longer be recognized.

Now what is wrong, or false, in what we have said?
Just some parts, or everything?
On whom can we still rely? Are we survivors, cast
away by the current? Will we be left behind,
no longer understanding anyone and being understood by no one?
Must we rely on luck?

This is what you ask. Expect
no answer but your own.


Bertolt Brecht
rockhound
Full Member
***
Posts: 163


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2016, 12:00:22 am »
Ignore

If the president had less power like a head of a council of states rather than holding executive power I think this would work. But then the United States wouldn't be a true country but more of a collective association of countries like the EU.

Presidential power has far exceeded what the constitution deemed appropriate.  It is time to start giving power back to the states, as well as the congress.

Arguing in favor of a popular vote tally, is purely a big government, less states rights argument.  It is solely a position of the left.

The argument for each state getting one vote is the much stronger one based on constitutional history.   I don't think the founders envisioned a state like California getting 18 times the voting power of smaller states, particularly in choosing a chief executive with the power that it has today.

Sites like the Atlas, that list popular vote totals, but not state totals, perpetuate the myth that somehow state count is irrelevant.  It is not--it is just as important as popular vote in having any discussion of results.

Perhaps though, the compromise is to limit states to no more than 15 EV (10x the smallest state), but even that, in my mind misses the point that the country is a collection of states.   It is, after all the United STATES of America, not the United Peoples Republic of America.
Logged

🆒
evergreen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9295
Antarctica


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2016, 09:51:10 am »
Ignore

If the president had less power like a head of a council of states rather than holding executive power I think this would work. But then the United States wouldn't be a true country but more of a collective association of countries like the EU.

Presidential power has far exceeded what the constitution deemed appropriate.  It is time to start giving power back to the states, as well as the congress.

Arguing in favor of a popular vote tally, is purely a big government, less states rights argument.  It is solely a position of the left.

The argument for each state getting one vote is the much stronger one based on constitutional history.   I don't think the founders envisioned a state like California getting 18 times the voting power of smaller states, particularly in choosing a chief executive with the power that it has today.

Sites like the Atlas, that list popular vote totals, but not state totals, perpetuate the myth that somehow state count is irrelevant.  It is not--it is just as important as popular vote in having any discussion of results.

Perhaps though, the compromise is to limit states to no more than 15 EV (10x the smallest state), but even that, in my mind misses the point that the country is a collection of states.   It is, after all the United STATES of America, not the United Peoples Republic of America.

Logged

1917 ☭ 2017
Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7506


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2016, 01:17:23 pm »
Ignore

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.

As long as Alberta gets left out.

But then it would be technically possible to win the election by winning every state except Canada.

Of course we can solve that by making Greenland part of Canada.
Logged

Note: I am not actually British.

Siren
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1763


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2016, 06:28:27 pm »
Ignore

I don't like the idea that states represent people.  People like to talk about New York and California as a place where there are only democrats and Idaho and Oklahoma as places where there are only republicans, but every 4 years the people who support the opposing party in those states go out to vote.  Their votes never matter because their candidate loses in a landslide, but they vote anyway.  That is serious dedication, and it would be much better if our electoral system didn't implicitly disenfranchise those voters in every election.
Logged

rockhound
Full Member
***
Posts: 163


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2016, 09:33:49 pm »
Ignore

I don't like the idea that states represent people.  People like to talk about New York and California as a place where there are only democrats and Idaho and Oklahoma as places where there are only republicans, but every 4 years the people who support the opposing party in those states go out to vote.  Their votes never matter because their candidate loses in a landslide, but they vote anyway.  That is serious dedication, and it would be much better if our electoral system didn't implicitly disenfranchise those voters in every election.

That supports the one state = on vote argument.   States are really different entities, each with their own issues and problems. 
Logged

SpookyWE
SomebodyWhoExists
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7988
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2016, 04:41:03 pm »
Ignore

I don't like the idea that states represent people.  People like to talk about New York and California as a place where there are only democrats and Idaho and Oklahoma as places where there are only republicans, but every 4 years the people who support the opposing party in those states go out to vote.  Their votes never matter because their candidate loses in a landslide, but they vote anyway.  That is serious dedication, and it would be much better if our electoral system didn't implicitly disenfranchise those voters in every election.

That supports the one state = on vote argument.   States are really different entities, each with their own issues and problems. 
What even?
Logged

Quote
18:37   Clark   Most of you are considered to be trolls, and with good reason

Quote
15:55   windjammer   you should all go to hell
 
For once, SWE is right
Sherrod Brown In Disguise
The walrus
Full Member
***
Posts: 235


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2016, 05:07:01 pm »
Ignore

I don't like the idea that states represent people.  People like to talk about New York and California as a place where there are only democrats and Idaho and Oklahoma as places where there are only republicans, but every 4 years the people who support the opposing party in those states go out to vote.  Their votes never matter because their candidate loses in a landslide, but they vote anyway.  That is serious dedication, and it would be much better if our electoral system didn't implicitly disenfranchise those voters in every election.

That supports the one state = on vote argument.   States are really different entities, each with their own issues and problems. 

How? How does that support that?
Logged

#AlwaysAlwaysAlwaysSherrodBrown

Breaking News: Trump Does Something Outrageous
Invisible Obama
DrScholl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6411
United States



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2016, 07:39:38 pm »
Ignore

This logic was used at lower levels of government and struck down in Reynolds vs. Sims. There were states that were allocating state senate seats as one per county. In California, Los Angeles County had one state senate seat, which was the same as the rural counties with incredibly small populations. Clearly, that gave sparsely populated areas an advantage just for being incorporated as opposed to being populated.

Under a one state-one vote rule, a partisan Congress could admit Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island and other uninhabited islands to the union, have a few people establish "residency" there and stack elections in their favor.
Logged

LOCK TRUMP UP!
xīngkěruž
xingkerui
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9949
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2016, 08:28:03 pm »
Ignore

I love how many people are perfectly content with the idea of rural voters mattering more than urban voters. Why can't a single vote count for the same, regardless of where it comes from?
Logged

mencken
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1494


Political Matrix
E: 6.39, S: -6.17

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2016, 10:36:41 pm »
Ignore

I love how many people are perfectly content with the idea of rural voters mattering more than urban voters. Why can't a single vote count for the same, regardless of where it comes from?

Should votes on UN Resolutions be determined by worldwide popular vote?
Logged

Scarlet Descent
omegascarlet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1798


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2016, 11:06:29 pm »
Ignore

I love how many people are perfectly content with the idea of rural voters mattering more than urban voters. Why can't a single vote count for the same, regardless of where it comes from?

Should votes on UN Resolutions be determined by worldwide popular vote?

UN Resolutions =/= US presidential elections.
Logged

Darkness will never leave me...
xīngkěruž
xingkerui
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9949
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2016, 12:23:57 am »
Ignore

I love how many people are perfectly content with the idea of rural voters mattering more than urban voters. Why can't a single vote count for the same, regardless of where it comes from?

Should votes on UN Resolutions be determined by worldwide popular vote?

Uh... no, but UN Resolutions are not elections in which millions participate.
Logged

IceAgeComing
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 531
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2016, 08:47:12 am »
Ignore

I love how many people are perfectly content with the idea of rural voters mattering more than urban voters. Why can't a single vote count for the same, regardless of where it comes from?

Should votes on UN Resolutions be determined by worldwide popular vote?

No; but if we started electing the Secretary General in a huge global election then that should be decided by a worldwide popular vote
Logged
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1350


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2016, 11:08:19 am »
Ignore

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

The current system clearly provides a disproportionate advantage to states with low population because of the fixed size of the House and the extra two electoral votes every state gets. Measuring from a one state one vote baseline is insane.

And claiming that your system which you made up out of whole cloth has more constitutional weight is just nuts. The only way you could argue that is by citing the procedure to elect the President in the House if there is no Electoral College winner, but they specifically made that not the preferred procedure.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines