Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

But if politics are nationalized such that CA Republicans and Montana Republicans (two very different states) want basically the same thing, and largely don't care if their personal votes count so long as their party wins, what's the justification for providing Montana extra representation?

It just becomes an arbitrary distinction that helps one national party beat another based on arbitrary lines on a map. Not, as folks argue, an equitable remedy to ensure individualized interests are heard/considered.

 

Im not sure why there is passion to support the electoral college. Most voters dont matter in the system, most states dont matter in the system, and it pushes a disproportionate amount of focus on a few states. It also magnifies any count discrepancies well passed their impact on the popular race.

 

If population is all that matters in presidential election why do Republicans win while spending negligible time in places like California and New York?

 

Yes I have, the two extra electors that North Dakota gets increase their say a Hell of a lot more than the two extra electors California gets.

the electoral college directly increases the weight of small states by giving them the guaranteed minimum of 3 electoral votes.

It’s for that reason that electoral votes are not directly proportional to population. Part of it is and part of it deliberately isn’t.

 

Part of it is and part of it isn’t.

It’s generally based on the amount of representatives plus the amount of senators.

How are the amount of senators by state decided? If it’s the same number for every state, why bother adding the same total number for every state?

You answer those two questions and maybe you’ll start getting it.

 

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." - Plato

"Dictatorship naturally arises" - the election and worship of Trump. Yet, the voters have rejected him, though narrowly.

"extreme liberty - one's right, so prevalent today, that I can do just about anything I want, including buying an AR15 or any other weapon of mass destruction.

 

Because they're not swing states? I've not been paying much attention to your debate, but seems pretty clear that he was saying presidential candidates spend a lot of time in swing states with large populations. You disagree with that?

 

True enough. But in addition to outlining the framework of governance I see the Constitution as also aspirational and we have slowly moved towards the ideals laid out in the document. There are things like slavery, Japanese internment, disenfranchisement of women that would no longer be possible (probably). It’s good to have goals as lofty as those in the Constitution

 

I would agree that they spend a lot of time in swing states with the largest populations, which again is not the same.

I probably shouldn't have used North Carolina as an example, I should have just stuck with Iowa because reasonable minds can call North Carolina a large state. But the size of North Carolina, particularly, is not the point. That was just an example I used that frankly could've been better.

The point is that the electoral college gives more power to small states balancing the playing field to a degree. Directly by giving North Dakota the same two additional electoral votes that California gets based on their representation in the Senate (North Dakota cares a heck of a lot more about those additional electors than California). And indirectly by making the game that is presidential elections about battleground states, rather than the biggest states.

Now, the game still gravitates towards the biggest battleground states because it's still a mix of state representation and popular representation, which I think is how the game should work. But you have to be a battleground state first. And again, states like North Dakota get significantly more weight thanks to their representation in the Senate than they otherwise would thanks to the electoral college from a sheer, vote-counting perspective.

 

Also, there are all the things that cause cognitive dissonance, like that he forcibly separated families at the border to punish them and that we still haven't returned some of those children to their families, because we had no record keeping system set up to do so.

 

You haven't offered any argument as to why that's valuable. Their increased say isn't leading to increased focus in terms of campaign resources.

 

In the case of the absolute smallest states, they're probably not getting too much increased focus. But they have a bigger say in deciding elections. That's certainly valuable to them.

 

Why is that "bigger say" important? Why is it more important than giving minority populations in every single state a say in the presidential elections? In other words, why is giving Wyoming a slightly bigger say that still renders them irrelevant more important than giving Republicans in New York and California an actual say?

 

The answer is clearly to combine the Dakota’s back into one state. Montoming too.

Doesn’t NY metro have the same pop as the lowest 8 states combined? Give cows a vote?

 

Not the same as what?

As for Iowa, if you are trying to use it as an example of a small state that receives a lot of presidential candidate attention, that is because Iowa is the first primary (caucus). If Iowa were the 30th primary, no candidate would give a rat's ass about it as it's a small state that votes R (not a swing state).

 

Did you forget that you brought up swing states? And that's what we were talking about?

Neither Democrats nor Republicans spend much time in California because it's practically a forgone conclusion. So they spend their time and resources in contested states they could win that bring a lot of electoral votes (in other words population). Like, for instance, North Carolina. And absolutely not like North Dakota.

I mean this is all middle school civics stuff, I think you're just dug in a little too deep at this point.

 

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?

 

Republicans in New York and California still have a say. They can vote. They just happen to live in very blue states that are unlikely to have any electors go Republican.

As far as why is it important? I think it's all important. I think popular representation matters, and we get that in the House. I think state representation matters, and we get that in the Senate. And I think it makes sense to have a combination of the two decide presidential elections, which is exactly what the electoral college is. Could it be better or fine-tuned? Sure. But there are completely valid reasons to not just have a popular vote system. The primary one is that state representation matters as well.

 

"Swing states with large populations" is not the same as saying "swing states with the largest populations."

As far as Iowa, I've said in this thread that it's not the most purple of swing states, but it's a good example to make the point that it's a small state that is relevant in federal elections because it can realistically go either way. It went to Bill Clinton twice, it went to Al Gore, Obama twice, it went to Trump twice.

People may not care about Iowa relative to Florida for example, but they care about Iowa a heck of a lot more than California and New York as far as presidential elections are concerned. Those two states are lost causes for Republicans.