Huey Driver Loc: Texas

Why the Democrats want to eliminate the E*******l College

The newly convened Democratic controlled House of Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the e*******l college. It seems that, since they couldn't win the last p**********l e******n under the rules that have existed for almost 250 years, they want to change the rules. Below is an excellent explanation on why this is a very bad idea.


A 39 second read you will want to pass on.

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the E*******l College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the E*******l College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

T***p w*n 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

T***p w*n 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular v**e by approx. 1.5 million v**es.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more v**es than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; T***p w*n Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular v**e of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.




The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the v**e of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national e******n.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.

Well worth the 39 seconds to read? Now please pass it on!

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Awesome.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

It wasn't created out of wisdom.
It was a concession to the s***e states.
Read a book.

Huey Driver Loc: Texas

If what you say is true it seems it's more important and relevant today than when the College was originally formed.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

You either misread or read the wrong books.
It was created to keep the high population states from controlling the country.
And at the time that meant Virginia (over 700,000 of just over 3 million in the country 19+%)- a s***e state.The s***e states had 50.2% of the national population.
The counting of each s***e as 3/5 of a person was also to keep the power of the s***e states down by restricting how many members they got in the House.
The splitting of the Congress with the Senate having 2 per state no matter what the population was also meant to help keep the big states from controlling the country.

And yes, I have studied the Constitution extensively (several regular classes plus 120 hours of seminars at the graduate level designed for classroom teachers) and taught it as part of 12th Grade Government.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

I don't have a problem with the E*******l College. I do have a problem
with the cognitive capabilities of the majority of v**ers.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

My advice to the democrats is= You never should have run the bag lady. Everyone knows shes a looser.

Huey Driver Loc: Texas

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

And this thread will be moved to The Attic in..... 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

The House districts are redrawn whenever we have a census so they will all represent equal voices. The Senate was designed in the early Republic to assure that important decisions included fair representation from all areas, not just the biggest states. However, it would not be hard to redistrict the Senate when we have a census. We could have 50 senators, but they would each represent areas of equal v**ers, today about 7 million per senator. This would still give all areas a fair say--New England equal to the South, and the Midwest equal to the Great Plains . Five or six states with sparse populations would have the same power as one or two populous ones.

There is no good argument for going against the principle of one-person/one-v**e, and the Federal courts already ruled out state senates that let sparse farming areas have more power than populous cities--they have to have about equal population for each senate seat. That still means that any law requires broad support around the state. Why should a v**e in Wyoming count five times as much as one in Texas or Florida? America has always had people who never actually liked the idea of other people having an equal say (Hamilton comes to mind, and favored only landowners v****g--a practice in the South even in 1960). People whose v**e counts extra are loathe to give it up to hoi polloi.

Surely it is not quite right that a candidate who got more v**es than any winner in the history of the nation (except one--Obama's first), and the biggest popular v**e majority in history (except Obama's first), lose to a minority that flipped the E*******l balance?

A different approach would be to let any city with a metro population equal to smaller states (say, the bottom 5 in population) could be given statehood. This would give them senate seats of their own, and most Americans now live in cities--underrepresented. This would in turn give them e*******l balance in the E*******l College as well, as these v**es add together House and Senate members for their representation.

Another reason for the E*******l College was to give Congress the choice of President when there is no strong national consensus, and that is what happened with Thomas Jefferson. However, I think that if this is done, it should be with the new Congress rather than the lame ducks--the new one would represent the freshest reflection of the people.

Jefferson himself believed the Constitution would be changed all the time (which is easier with just a few states), and in his Second Inaugural he said he would support any bill that helped the people, and would support an Amendment for that whenever required. He said it did not seem right to him that the nation should be ruled by dead men. He also boasted that he had paid off the entire national debt from the Revolution by selling real estate in the western territories, bought from the Indian nations at going prices (at that time they could take their money and move west--no great hardship).

Still another approach in favor of democracy would be to have each state divide their e*******l v**es in proportion to the v**es in their state, rather than winner takes all in that state. (Some states do this.)

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

So you disagree with my statement and then answer it by supporting it with facts supporting it.
That's interesting.
Think much?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

This is potentially a good discussion, but why start it here when you know it will go to the attic? (This has happened several times recently).

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Go to the attic? You mean like bats in the belfry?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Well, yes I do, a lot in fact.
Your statement:
"It wasn't created out of wisdom.
It was a concession to the s***e states. What you say means it was giving in to them and giving them an advantage. And it was actually taking power from them. Esp the 3/5 compromise which was worked out as part of the debates about p**********l e******ns and power in Congress. It reduced their House members by quite a bit. Read a dictionary lately?
Read a book."

As I pointed out the e*******l college was to offset the huge populations of a few states and that the largest at the time was Virginia, a s***e state. #3 was also a s***e state, but after that it was Northern states, many of whom did have s***ery on a tiny scale but got rid of it fairly fast. That 50.2% of the total population in s***e states gave them no advantage in the House and even less so when the 3/5 compromise was factored in. It did not take long for them to be out populated overall by the free states as the majority of immigrants went to the industrializing North for jobs or out to the frontier for land. The poor/uneducated/unsk**led immigrants largely avoided the s***e states because the s***es held most of the jobs they were able to do.

EyeSawYou

At least one correction in your links post, Hillary didn't just win 57 counties in total, she won 487 counties...which is far greater than the 57 stated. But that is not the point of the OP, but accuracy is also important and one has to question the rest of the information carefully, unless of course you are AOC. lol