General Discussion

Captain Stern

(2,199 posts)

20. Not really.

Wed Jan 30, 2019, 05:58 PM

Jan 2019

That would mean the states with a lot of rich people would be able to dump on the states with a lot of poor people.

Most people that lived in poor states, that could afford to move to another state, would.

The results would be ugly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If the Electoral College was to really be designed for fairness [View all] randr Jan 2019 OP

So, wealthy people should (in aggregate) have more political clout? brooklynite Jan 2019 #1

They do already fescuerescue Jan 2019 #6

I'm not wealthy. But my brother is. I live in a giver state, he lives in a taker state. Squinch Jan 2019 #27

"I wish we lived in a nation where the majority rules." EX500rider Jan 2019 #2

Do you really want Texas, California and New York deciding who your President is? marble falls Jan 2019 #3

"Usually" maxsolomon Jan 2019 #7

W's wasn't the EC's fault. It was the Secty of State in Florida and Michigan's doing ... marble falls Jan 2019 #11

Every vote should count equally lunamagica Jan 2019 #9

Only if every state and region were balanced. They are not. The fact is that because of Texas's ... marble falls Jan 2019 #14

Yeah, but that influence is waning now, is it not? mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2019 #28

It ebbs and flows. I got here in 1999. The headlines were: "Democrats gain strength in ... marble falls Jan 2019 #31

I want the majority of Americans to choose our Presidents randr Jan 2019 #32

I think that's a false argument. In It to Win It Jan 2019 #38

Do you think that state interests are all the same? Then why are there still agriculteral ... marble falls Jan 2019 #40

Forgive me but... In It to Win It Jan 2019 #41

The EC was set up to prevent two or three states from determining who the President was ... marble falls Jan 2019 #42

It would not be decided by state if the popular vote prevailed treestar Feb 2019 #54

+1 treestar Feb 2019 #49

Why should urban people have the last word on rural policies? Why should a racist white ... marble falls Feb 2019 #50

Rural policies can be at state level too treestar Feb 2019 #53

Do you really want the swing states deciding? treestar Feb 2019 #48

The EC was useful in the early years of this nation..... Little Star Jan 2019 #4

So the wealthiest get more representation than the poor? fescuerescue Jan 2019 #5

Literally, a "poll" tax... brooklynite Jan 2019 #13

Yeah, that sounds fair sarisataka Jan 2019 #8

The founders were cognizant of this issue sdfernando Jan 2019 #10

Yabbut zipplewrath Jan 2019 #16

Granted the system was conceived and created when there were only 13 states sdfernando Jan 2019 #17

Can't zipplewrath Jan 2019 #18

Or just make it like the House of Lords, an interesting artifact of a bygone era with no real power. Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #26

That's because the Senate was never meant to represent the interests of the people Revanchist Jan 2019 #21

Well, yes but zipplewrath Jan 2019 #46

Thus we got dumbfuckistan. Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #24

We are a union of states. It's right there in the name. *shrug* n/t X_Digger Jan 2019 #12

Interesting theory. former9thward Jan 2019 #15

Not individual persons per se randr Jan 2019 #33

No. Just no. Goodheart Jan 2019 #19

Not really. Captain Stern Jan 2019 #20

You mean like the States that keep their people poor are able to dump on us all? randr Jan 2019 #35

No, that's not what I mean. Captain Stern Jan 2019 #44

My intent was to show that the "argument" I proposed was just as inane as the one we have. randr Jan 2019 #45

I understand now. No apology necessary. Captain Stern Feb 2019 #47

It is not going to change. Cold War Spook Jan 2019 #22

good grief no that is a horrible idea. Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #23

Now that would be the obvious solution randr Jan 2019 #36

Actually Apollyonus Jan 2019 #25

Or we could just order people to move to less populous states n/t MichMan Jan 2019 #29

Or we could just directly elect the president. Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #30

It was designed to help slave states. Garrett78 Jan 2019 #34

States should not elect the president. The people should kennetha Jan 2019 #37

The difference is only 4% (23 vs 27?) I'd have thought it'd be larger a diff % frankly ... mr_lebowski Feb 2019 #52

Back in the old days you had to own land to vote... Joe941 Jan 2019 #39

i would be thrilled if we just had a system where the winner of the election gets to be President Takket Jan 2019 #43

If you really wanted to design it for fairness, get rid of it, and have the popular vote determine still_one Feb 2019 #51