Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
Of course it's ludicrous, they don't care. That's what kneeling to the beast of universal suffrage gets you. There is a reason that this country was founded as a representational republic with a limited franchise, and not a "democracy". Even back then, the Founders knew that one pulse one vote was a crass system destined for failure.
There's only one argument you ever need against the popular vote activists: federalism. Pointing out the number of counties and showing the breakdown of how they voted is great, but it still doesn't truly get to the central issue.
The federal government was created by the states, not the other way around. It was meant to provide something that the states could not or at least should not do (such as raising an army, handling immigration, printing money, and regulating commerce among the states). The states needed to each have their fair share of representation in this new government, especially since they created it. A popular vote would disregard this entirely and render the states immaterial.
The next time someone pushes a popular vote argument on you, ask them why we should do that when no other branch of the federal government does this. You have no vote in the Supreme Court. The Senate is even worse than the electoral college when it comes to a supposed one-person-one vote argument. You get two senators per state, regardless of population. Are we supposed to alter or abolish the Senate?
The House of Representatives is not a one-person-one vote situation. There's a maximum pool of 435 representatives and they're distributed to the states on a priority based system. In order for the House to be anything close to national popular vote, there would have to be no cap on the number of representatives.
The federal government was never designed to represent you as an individual. It was designed to represent the states. That is why the constitution only provides limited powers to the federal government. Your state is supposed to represent you as an individual.
"But this specific foreign country has a popular vote!"
This right here. Square mileage and counties don't mean anything. The states elect the president and the states' power in doing so is derived exactly from the great compromise. The notion that a vote in a smaller state is "worth more" can only happen if someone fails to realize that it's the states that elect the president, and comparisons across state lines are meaningless and miss the point entirely.
I've often seen them state that the UK has the popular vote.
We don't. We use a kind of very simplified equivalent of the EC. All counties are divided into Constituencies. Each Constituency equals one seat in parliament and one vote on government issues. You get more seats than your opponent and their allies, you get complete control of government, assuming your whips are doing their jobs.
This means a group of sleepy little villages in Yorkshire have the same representation as the most populous borough of London.
It certainly makes for exciting elections. The recent destruction of the Labour Party's Northern 'Red Wall' was epic to watch. Areas that had never been Conservative flipped. The sad little faces of the talking heads on the BBC were most entertaining.
The best bit is that the leader of the parties have to stand in their own seats. The leader of the increasingly far left and anti-Brexit Liberal Dems actually lost her seat in 2019. Unheard of and hugely embarrassing. She cried. It was great.
Certainly sounds entertaining. Thanks for information.
Also, if Nancy Pelosi loses her position as Speaker of the House after the November election, you'll see similar crying over here. It will be glorious.
Thanks this is a good argument. I am for popular vote in general election, but I never thought of it this way. You might have changed my mind.
However, if this is the case, the federal power should be more limited than it is. Trump has been proving for the last 4 years just how much power the president alone has.
The real issue with federal power is that the Supreme Court falsely increased it well beyond its scope over the decades. If you read Article I of the constitution where it discusses Congress's powers, it's extremely limited.
I also used to favor the popular vote... when I had no idea how electoral college actually worked. Once I saw the 2016 election and actually bothered to learn about it, I changed my mind completely.
it's less about the amount of land, it's more about the region. Certain people, in a certain area, tend to think a certain way. The Electoral College gets us closer to the National mood/idea than a popular vote ever could. Small Town Lives Matter!
I'd throw the word "culture" in there (because it's true).
New York and LA have a different culture than the midwest. They don't understand their way of life, and if they were to have unfettered rule over them it would simply be tyranny.
If the British Empire took a popular vote, do you think the American colonies would have been granted independence?
There are differing totals depending on how Louisiana and Alaska are counted (LA has parishes and Alaska has boroughs). The most I saw for Hillary was 500 counties. Associated Press reported 487 for Hillary. And on snopes they agree with the AP numbers (not that I find snopes reliable).
Hold on. Trump DID win a popular vote. The rest is a dem fairy tale supported by dem media and MASSIVE voter fraud. That's why they were so sure of victory.
Keep in mind Google and big tech threw their weight behind Hillary. They shifted the totals by millions of votes in 2016. Biggest threat to our elections in the coming years, especially when you look how close many local races are.
Just point out that Trump did win the popular vote... 31 times. He won the popular vote in 30 of 50 states. Then he won the popular vote among the electoral college electors.
city states... no thanks.
Of course it's ludicrous, they don't care. That's what kneeling to the beast of universal suffrage gets you. There is a reason that this country was founded as a representational republic with a limited franchise, and not a "democracy". Even back then, the Founders knew that one pulse one vote was a crass system destined for failure.
Has a true democracy every worked? I'm amazed at the amount of people that don't know we aren't a democracy.
Not once.
I thought so but wasn't sure. Thanks.
The popular vote isn't the only factor that should be considered when making decisions.
We'd still have slavery today if it was
There's only one argument you ever need against the popular vote activists: federalism. Pointing out the number of counties and showing the breakdown of how they voted is great, but it still doesn't truly get to the central issue.
The federal government was created by the states, not the other way around. It was meant to provide something that the states could not or at least should not do (such as raising an army, handling immigration, printing money, and regulating commerce among the states). The states needed to each have their fair share of representation in this new government, especially since they created it. A popular vote would disregard this entirely and render the states immaterial.
The next time someone pushes a popular vote argument on you, ask them why we should do that when no other branch of the federal government does this. You have no vote in the Supreme Court. The Senate is even worse than the electoral college when it comes to a supposed one-person-one vote argument. You get two senators per state, regardless of population. Are we supposed to alter or abolish the Senate?
The House of Representatives is not a one-person-one vote situation. There's a maximum pool of 435 representatives and they're distributed to the states on a priority based system. In order for the House to be anything close to national popular vote, there would have to be no cap on the number of representatives.
The federal government was never designed to represent you as an individual. It was designed to represent the states. That is why the constitution only provides limited powers to the federal government. Your state is supposed to represent you as an individual.
"But this specific foreign country has a popular vote!"
Does that country have federalism?
This right here. Square mileage and counties don't mean anything. The states elect the president and the states' power in doing so is derived exactly from the great compromise. The notion that a vote in a smaller state is "worth more" can only happen if someone fails to realize that it's the states that elect the president, and comparisons across state lines are meaningless and miss the point entirely.
Its also to contain corruption. A bad apple can only fuck up their precincts numbers instead of the whole kaboodle.
I've often seen them state that the UK has the popular vote.
We don't. We use a kind of very simplified equivalent of the EC. All counties are divided into Constituencies. Each Constituency equals one seat in parliament and one vote on government issues. You get more seats than your opponent and their allies, you get complete control of government, assuming your whips are doing their jobs.
This means a group of sleepy little villages in Yorkshire have the same representation as the most populous borough of London.
It certainly makes for exciting elections. The recent destruction of the Labour Party's Northern 'Red Wall' was epic to watch. Areas that had never been Conservative flipped. The sad little faces of the talking heads on the BBC were most entertaining.
The best bit is that the leader of the parties have to stand in their own seats. The leader of the increasingly far left and anti-Brexit Liberal Dems actually lost her seat in 2019. Unheard of and hugely embarrassing. She cried. It was great.
Certainly sounds entertaining. Thanks for information.
Also, if Nancy Pelosi loses her position as Speaker of the House after the November election, you'll see similar crying over here. It will be glorious.
That would be a major win for you guys, and us all really.
A huge swamp scalp!
Thanks this is a good argument. I am for popular vote in general election, but I never thought of it this way. You might have changed my mind.
However, if this is the case, the federal power should be more limited than it is. Trump has been proving for the last 4 years just how much power the president alone has.
The real issue with federal power is that the Supreme Court falsely increased it well beyond its scope over the decades. If you read Article I of the constitution where it discusses Congress's powers, it's extremely limited.
I also used to favor the popular vote... when I had no idea how electoral college actually worked. Once I saw the 2016 election and actually bothered to learn about it, I changed my mind completely.
it's less about the amount of land, it's more about the region. Certain people, in a certain area, tend to think a certain way. The Electoral College gets us closer to the National mood/idea than a popular vote ever could. Small Town Lives Matter!
I'd throw the word "culture" in there (because it's true).
New York and LA have a different culture than the midwest. They don't understand their way of life, and if they were to have unfettered rule over them it would simply be tyranny.
If the British Empire took a popular vote, do you think the American colonies would have been granted independence?
I understand your point, but those numbers are waaaaay off. Clinton won like 685 or she won like 1,048 counties. I don't remember the exact number.
There are differing totals depending on how Louisiana and Alaska are counted (LA has parishes and Alaska has boroughs). The most I saw for Hillary was 500 counties. Associated Press reported 487 for Hillary. And on snopes they agree with the AP numbers (not that I find snopes reliable).
Yeah that 487 number sounds right
Hold on. Trump DID win a popular vote. The rest is a dem fairy tale supported by dem media and MASSIVE voter fraud. That's why they were so sure of victory.
Every state is red if you remove the largest city.
Crazy to think about, isn't it?
Counties should be the electoral law, every county in the US gets 1 electoral vote.
Squish people together and they don't vote as individuals but as a mob. Manhattan should get one vote all together.
Leftist thinks quietly for a few seconds...
“It’s unfair! Ban it!”
Thus the electoral college
A bigger piece of this is that if you live in California or NY there is no reason to bother voting if you are a republican.
Keep in mind Google and big tech threw their weight behind Hillary. They shifted the totals by millions of votes in 2016. Biggest threat to our elections in the coming years, especially when you look how close many local races are.
Also keep in mind the MILLIONS of illegals voting for her, voter fraud, and all that good shit
She would've lost the popular vote too if they hadn't cheated in so many votes
I wish I could give you ten thousand upvotes for this.
need to fix the numbers, which arent correct. trump won popular vote in 84% of us counties. clinton won 587, i think. trump 2600 or so..
Just point out that Trump did win the popular vote... 31 times. He won the popular vote in 30 of 50 states. Then he won the popular vote among the electoral college electors.
I don't think clinton even won the popular vote, didn't orange man bad have the votes recounted and won even that?
Not to mention all the zombie and illegal votes that went to madam president hillary instead of drumphfthphfz.
How dare you use your facts and logic