Wait a minute...you use that 2% as if it diminished the point, but you're fine winning a state by that same percentage and accumulating the entire EC vote. There's a disconnect in that. And ultimately, you're restating my point, that the majority in concentration shouldn't have the same influence of people who are simply spread out across a large area.
I am saying people have more influence in their given state not to the whole of the nation, California already has great influence with the amount of electors it has now...the most but, that should not mean they speak for the entire nation because of it, and that is the beauty of the system IMO. The system as it stands speaks for the states & the people that dwell in them proportionally, I see your point but, disagree with a majority rule vote to have one or two states dictate how an entire nation should live. We are just not going to find agreement, you see a problem where I do not, which is more than likely the way the nation sees it as well...50/50.
The reasons the founders had for creating the EC have mostly gone by the boards, as I noted a long while back when citing to historical examinations on the point, but what I'm mostly arguing is that a popular election of the president, one the EC almost always rubber stamps, makes more sense in relation to the idea of equality that is bedrock within our compact. More, where we find an intentional drawing of voting lines to accomplish what the EC system did we call it gerrymandering and repeal the lines.
I disagree with this assertion as well, the main reason they went against pure democracy was that they historically fail, Madison spoke of this in federalist 10. The framers were not simple rubes, they were educated, well read men, studiers of philosophy & history, it wasn't just a passing notion our governmental style was crafted the way it was, and debated heavily before it was ever settled. I know that we humans, especially in this day & age believe we are smarter or more enlightened than the next guy, or last guy but, certainly history repeats itself and the framers knew that. Philosophy was at the heart of this decision as well as the history that pure democracy was not a route the framers wanted to take. You say the reasons for creating a republic (including it's voting system) have all gone away but, I would say the premise that our constitutional system was crafted the way it was have never changed, because people never change.
Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronised this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that, by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the union.
James Madison Federalist 10 |
Exactly. It's not about party or whining or revisiting the election. I think the recount was a goofy waste of time and the issue in the present is settled. But what was the odd, rare occurrence has now visited twice in relative short order and I think it's bad for the compact, because it tells a small business owner in a given city that his vote isn't as important as a farmer's, by way of.
And it was visited twice in short order way back in 1876 & 1888 elections as well but, the constitution was not changed then either. I am sure there was contentious debate about the system then as well but, I would assert that today we have a different paradigm than businessman vs Farmer, we have two opposing ideologies, and one is not consistent with the constitution, therefore the opposing ideology now wants to change the constitution to fit their ideology. It is not a new paradigm just one that is being revisited.
It's not at all the same thing. This isn't west and south and east laboring to promote a regional interest. These aren't people unfamiliar with the candidates from any particular. Hillary won in concentrations across the country, even carrying parts of the South.
Your wrong, it is those that desire a socialistic style of governance and those that desire to reject it, and as we see by the election map that these areas of ideology are isolated & regional. I live in a socialistic state and know exactly what the marxist liberal crowd is after, they want every citizen to bear the burden of their utopian ideal, and under this form of republic entire states have the ability to reject it, even if the majority in populated areas want to lord over the whole nation with this ideology. This election was rejection of socialistic government yet again, the system works I say...
I'm looking right now. Even in Alabama, the most pro Trump state in the country, you'll find a swath of blue.
Swaths...I would call it a smattering nationwide at best, even if that smattering has more people. Maybe marxist liberals need to spread out if they want to accomplish the goal of deconstructing the constitution.
It does if I'm right. And any movement starts with people questioning the wisdom of something established within the compact.
Are you right? I don't think so...It will take more than a declaration to prove it, and create a super majority that agrees to change it.
Hope springs eternal...
You never gave the "or" to meet that "either" and the time of dominance of the landed gentry, the treating of women and minorities like second class citizens is done. The majority you seem to disdain (except when it's a majority as triggered by the EC) is no more prone to whim than the minority.
I never said that some amendments were not legitimate as it relates to the rights of people (nice of you to infer that I wouldn't) but, I do however take issue with amendments made to the pillars that the government was built on for the whims of the populace, and the 17th did just that. I would say the "or" (I did forget it) is leave it alone the constitution has been perverted enough, deconstructing it further will only bring with it more problems.
