An idea

[A18]

Whoever wins the most counties in each state wins. For example, Clinton would have won Arkansas big:

[Alcon]

Uh, no.

Counties are more or less just made for beaucratic reasons that have nothing to do with votes.

Good attempt of manipulation by example, though. If it wasn't that this would make a landslide for the Republicans in every election, that is.

[KEmperor]

Um....no.  Counties vary WIDELY in population.  It would be the same as saying whoever wins the most states should win.

[A18]

Counties are communities. Whoever gets the most widespread support should win.

And this would not create a Republican landslide in every election. Carter would have done a lot better.

[A18]

On second thought, I don't like this idea much. No checks and balances.

But I would like to see each county get 2 state Senators in one branch of the state legislatures.

[Alcon]

Counties are communities. Whoever gets the most widespread support should win.

They are? That's funny, because I have never been to the other side of the county I live in. I don't know anyone there. You know what's the best way to measure widespread support? See who gets the most votes! The electoral college system distills things enough.

And this would not create a Republican landslide in every election. Carter would have done a lot better.

In 2000, an election where Gore received the most votes, this would have resulted in an electoral landslide for Bush:



Bush would have received 487 votes to Gore's 51, or 48, since I suppose this would mean DC wouldn't count (what about Louisiana?). That makes no sense whatsoever. It would make more sense of counties were assigned electoral votes (however you'd do that) but that would just make the system even more pointlessly confusing.

[A18]

Getting the most votes doesn't mean you have widespread support at all.

Like I said, I oppose this idea. But we need to give counties a say in state legislatures so that condensed areas aren't deciding everything.

[Alcon]

Getting the most votes doesn't mean you have widespread support at all.

Like I said, I oppose this idea. But we need to give counties a say in state legislatures so that condensed areas aren't deciding everything.

But some counties are condensed without having much population. Case in point, Wahkiakum County, which is 264 square miles and has a population of 3,824. Compare that to Okanogan County, population 39,565 with 5,268 square miles. Wahkiakum County has a population density of 14.5 people per square mile, compared to Okanogan's 7.5 people a square mile. Yet it counts the same. That doesn't make sense.

[A18]

Do you oppose the Senate?

I'm not a big believer in pure democracy, as you know.

[Alcon]

Do you oppose the Senate?

I'm not a big believer in pure democracy, as you know.

No, because I think the current system has been effective. We have the senate, which allocates an insane amount of power to Wyoming, and the electoral college, which is the only thing that makes Iowa relevant. However, your metaphor is flawed because the President is not elected by the number of states he or she wins.

[A18]

State Legislature: 2 Senators per County
Federal Legislature: 2 Senators per State

I'm not talking about the Electoral College.

[Alcon]

Well, whatever it is, it doesn't matter. If you're talking about the state senate districts, then there is no need for "broad support" since they are simply districts which means that counties are back to making zero sense.

[Redefeatbush04]

Philip -  you are by far the stupidest person you have ever met.

Alcon - I'm sure you will kick his ass debating this but I offer advice: do not waste your time. He is too dumb to realize what you are saying, and too closed-minded to care what you are saying.

[A18]

Well, whatever it is, it doesn't matter. If you're talking about the state senate districts, then there is no need for "broad support" since they are simply districts which means that counties are back to making zero sense.

Equal population districts don't translate into wide support.

[Sulfur]

I would support giving every county a seat in state legislatures, but the idea of having them determine presidential elections is absurd.

[Erc]

State Legislature: 2 Senators per County
Federal Legislature: 2 Senators per State

I'm not talking about the Electoral College.

Of course, thanks to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article IV (?) and the XIV Amendment, the former case is deemed unconstitutional and undemocratic.  The only reason they couldn't get rid of the latter is because that's actually explicitly stated in the Constitution...

[jimrtex]

I live in a county that has 50,000 (fifty thousand) times as many persons as the smallest county in the state.  I would be opposed to giving the small county as much influence (even if they do have more votes cast than their total population).

[A18]

They would only have equal influence in one branch of the legislature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An absurd misconstrution of the document by activist judges. Anyway, if state representation in a federal Senate's a good idea, I don't see what's wrong with county representation in a state Senate.