Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

This is all I've ever said. You keep trying to change my argument because your central premise is nonsensical.

No, I didn't. I said NC was the second largest. It's also a large population.

Nope. Didn't say that. I said they go to large populations. See above. If a state does not have a large population, it is - by definition - excluded by my only statement.

I did say this but only in the sense that it's equivalent with population.

 

Isn't that exactly what is happening to the voting minorities in every state? More people voted for Trump in California than any state in the nation. Yet their votes were completely meaningless from the jump.

Heck, using your analogy, they were not only automatically beat by 60 strokes before the first hole was played, but they were essentially forced to caddie for Spieth so that he could beat them by even more (as their mere presence in California improves his score card).

Why should we care so much about amplifying the voice of ~340k Republicans in Montana, when we plainly don't give a rat's ass about ~6 million Republicans in CA?

 

Yeah this claim that NC is not a large state is weird. They are the 9th largest state in the US. I think that qualifies them as a large state.

 

I have your posts right here.

Also, the following swing states are ahead of North Carolina: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia/Florida. I'll throw you a bone in only counting Georgia or Florida.

 

Fine, my Lord.

Just remove North Carolina from the hypothetical and exclude my example to Iowa, which I wouldn't say is the most purple of the swing states, but the point still remains.

 

Seems like the fact that no other presidential system has adopted an electoral college like ours is proof enough that it is a wacky idea, the notion that is was a defense against a truly unfit person becoming president has obviously been refuted too. Its obvious the people that wrote the Constition had misgivings about popular will and a great deal of faith in the idea of an elite that wasnt depraved but rather enlightened. Its fine to say they were wrong.

 

I didnt mention individual persons. I mentioned STATES. The majority of the state gets to speak for the state, but its important that the majority in a state matter.

 

Obviously this experiment has evolved over the years. Imagine going back to a system in which only white male property owners were allowed to vote, state legislatures selected US Senators, and owning human beings was legal in half the states.
That "more perfect union" thing applies as we continue to try to figure out this self governance thing as an alternative to monarchy. That phrase " taxation without representation" resonates even today.

 

That is what the Senate and state government is for. Can you tell me why the state's majority opinion needs to also run the House of Representatives (through gerrymandering) or the Presidency (through the EC) and why minority individuals should have no elections in which they are the important unit?

I have not voted in a single competitive federal election in 7 straight cycles now because I have lived in states that weren't equally balanced. Most people in this country are in a similar situation. Can you defend why that should be our system? Please make your case for why most people should be completely ignored in all federal elections.

 

People have absolutely argued that in the past, like most things about the EC, the reasons evolve to fit the circumstances, because almost all explanations are ex post facto justifications. The reason the EC exists is because the people who made this country didn't trust voters to elect a president & VP directly. That's it. Protecting slavery, protecting small states, whatever, all those explanations are modern interpretations of a weird and non-sensical aspect of our system (one that doesnt even function now as laid out in the Constitution). All the explanations given here are better and more logical than any the people actually created it had lol (and the ones here arent particularly logical).

 

Federalist 68. The argument in there was that we needed an intermediate body to prevent the public from making bad decisions.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

It isn't one outcome. It is the fact that the vast majority of people have basically no say in the Presidency, while the state's interests are protected by the Senate and gerrymandering has eliminated their say in the House as well.

The system is a huge part of the problem. Just because you would prefer everybody to be more like you and have your morals doesn't mean that you should utilize the system to enforce that above people's interests.

 

The irony of quoting the federalist papers to start a thread, but not knowing what the federalist papers say about the topic.

 

Plank is merely reiteraterating the Jewish/Catholic/Protestant mantra that any problems associated with Govt and to a larger level, society at large, is associated with improper adherence to cult religious beliefs. Which of course is expected. It's always so easy to blame societal and earthly problems to lack of "adherence".

Countless civilizations have fallen over the millenia by persons holding this view.

Odd how the answer always seems war and heads being cut off.

 

Every one of my posts say it's the population that matters. Eventually you even agreed with me.

 

Maybe you don't realize that EVs are determined by population? I otherwise cannot understand how you'd be so confused by a singular point.

 

and a total population of under 3 million. So way less than 3 million voters.

 

You haven't been able to offer any proof it protects small states. All you've proven is that it provides disproportionate attention and power to swing states. You have yet to show why that is a preferable outcome to giving the total population in every state a say.

 

That's not really an answer to my question--apologies if I wasn't clear.

Setting aside @mdgator05's point that states already get special representation in the Senate, what I want to know is why should we give states any special advantages to make sure they have "a fair opportunity to compete" in the EC when we don't provide those same considerations to people.

There are six million Republicans in CA that would absolutely say "whats good for [CA Democrats] may not be good for [CA Republicans]."

By your logic, they should not only get a voice, they should get an extra voice. Yet those CA Republicans are not only being denied equal voice, they are being denied any voice through winner-takes-all apportionment.

If you want to talk about fairness and protecting the voices of political minorities, that's fine. But those are concepts that apply just as readily to people as states. Aside from political expediency, I see no way to logically or normatively square helping one but screwing the other.

 

No, I understand your point... And i totally get that this is a complex issue with valid opinions on both sides.

All I am saying is aI think a states majority being given equal voice to another states majority is important.

Otherwise you run the risk of 3 or 4 geographical areas making all the decisions. Those decisions may very well mirror the minority in Wyoming.

If I am a conservatove in California these day, I may like the status quo as it means Wyoming may very well help get me what I want.

There is no full proof answer. I concede that. Thats just where I stand on the issue.