US population and electorial votes

[Spear]

From an external point of view, i find it great to be able to have 1 man = 1 vote.

Would it be strictly impossible to have a federal state with a president elected directly by the people ?

 

[Salty]

From an external point of view, i find it great to be able to have 1 man = 1 vote.

Would it be strictly impossible to have a federal state with a president elected directly by the people ?

NO, it is not impossible, but the US was a nation of States. In fact, some countires (I think France was one) was debating whether to send one ambassador to the US, or 13 seperate ambassadors to each State.

Second, and what I see as a major problem would be that candidates would concreate their campaigns to large cities .

I go into detail on posts # 7 (on pg 1) & 22 (on pg 3) of this thread.

 

[Winman]

And Bush was not the first President to lose the popular vote, but win the Electoral College.

Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000) all lost the popular vote but won by the Electoral College.

John Quincy Adams lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College to Andrew Jackson in 1824 in a three-way race. Because no candidate won a majority of the electoral votes, the election was decided by the House of Representatives who selected Adams.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

From an external point of view, i find it great to be able to have 1 man = 1 vote.

Would it be strictly impossible to have a federal state with a president elected directly by the people ?

Do you think the President of Europe will ever be chosen by the direct popular vote of the people of Europe?

I doubt it - the election of the new European President is MUCH more complicated that the Electoral College.

 

[billwald]

>From an external point of view, i find it great to be able to have 1 man = 1 vote.

If that was the case then why would a presidential candidate care what anyone in N&S Dak, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico. Wisconson
. . . thought about anything?

 

[Nonsequitur]

This article shows how blatantly unfair the Electoral College system is. In large states like New York, California, and Texas, there are 600,000 to over 700,000 residents per electoral vote. In small states like Wyoming, Vermontm and North Dakota, there are about 200,000 residents per electoral vote.

This means that a person's vote is vote more than 3 times as much in Wyoming as it is in New York. Whatever happened to the idea of one man/one vote?

This quote shows how you have know idea how this works. "Nuff said.

 

[Nonsequitur]

I'm aware that the representation in the House and Senate is designed to balance each other. Here, I'm talking specifically about the election of the President.

Again, you have no idea how this works.

 

[Nonsequitur]

From an external point of view, i find it great to be able to have 1 man = 1 vote.

Would it be strictly impossible to have a federal state with a president elected directly by the people ?

Of course not.
Try checking out a library book about your country's history.
(WARNING: Not to be read to your children as a night-time story!)

 

[Spear]

Of course not.
Try checking out a library book about your country's history.
(WARNING: Not to be read to your children as a night-time story!)

The fact is i never know if you're joking or pushing me :smilewinkgrin:

Do you think the President of Europe will ever be chosen by the direct popular vote of the people of Europe?

I doubt it - the election of the new European President is MUCH more complicated that the Electoral College.

I understand C4K, if i consider the states as different nations.

It is interesting to me, because it helps me understand better what people have in mind, and how their consider themselves.
We, europeans, tend to see US people as 1) american people and citizen of the USA country, and 2) american people and citizen of the USA country living in regions called " states ".
I never really felt the importance of the " state " and all the stuff (laws, independance on many things, ....) compared to the " country " in people's mind and heart.
I don't criticize, i just understand better (and by the way that " federal taking all the powers " i read very often here).

To come back to your reply C4K, i think we would be in a different case here about a true European president. It would be hard for me to admit we would not elect directly our european president. Of course, little countries would have less " weight " in his election, but i think it's the principle of universal suffrage.

NO, it is not impossible, but the US was a nation of States. In fact, some countires (I think France was one) was debating whether to send one ambassador to the US, or 13 seperate ambassadors to each State.

Second, and what I see as a major problem would be that candidates would concreate their campaigns to large cities .

I go into detail on posts # 7 (on pg 1) & 22 (on pg 3) of this thread.

I'll check this back and digest the explanations, thanks

 

[Nonsequitur]

The fact is i never know if you're joking or pushing me :smilewinkgrin:
(A little of both!):laugh:

I understand C4K, if i consider the states as different nations. (You almost got it. We are different states, but have agreed to form one country. We each reserve the right to run our states as the people see fit.)

It is interesting to me, because it helps me understand better what people have in mind, and how their consider themselves.(We see ourselves as independent, with limited common, (Federal) laws.)
We, europeans, tend to see US people as 1) american people and citizen of the USA country, and 2) american people and citizen of the USA country living in regions called " states ". (They are more than 'regions', each has its' own history, and thus way of life.)
I never really felt the importance of the " state " and all the stuff (laws, independance on many things, ....) compared to the " country " in people's mind and heart.(Ah. Maybe there-in lies the problem. We are not subjects of the contry, nor subjects of the state.)
I don't criticize, i just understand better (and by the way that " federal taking all the powers " i read very often here).

To come back to your reply C4K, i think we would be in a different case here about a true European president. It would be hard for me to admit we would not elect directly our european president. Of course, little countries would have less " weight " in his election, but i think it's the principle of universal suffrage.



I'll check this back and digest the explanations, thanks

Americans want freedom.
There are very few reasons that we even need a Federal government, or a State government.
But we all want to live our lives as we see fit, and not how someone else thinks that we should.
That is why we hold elections so often, so that if the ones that have been elected do not do a good job, or not what we want them to, we kick them to the curb.
That is why a politician will not be successful in San Francisco running on a platform of making the gay life-style illegal.
This is why a politician wil not be successful in a hunting state on a platform of getting rid of hunting.
This is why a politician will not be successful in trying to bring unions to a right-to work state.
And this is why some of the political situations here are so heatedly debated, because no one wants anothers beliefs to become a federal law, covering the U.S., that they think is unfair, un-ethical, illegal, unjust, or what they consider to be against their religion, or way of life.
Full circle to freedom.
Freedom to live life as one chooses without others telling them how to do it.
That is one of the reasons for your, 'federal taking all the powers...".
Simply put....they ain't got the right.
That's why we have what is called 'States Rights' here.
I know this is a VERY simplified explanation, but if you don't like what is happening in one state, there are 49 others to go to.
For example, the majority of the other people I live with in Texas mostly believe in free interprise, right-to-work (no unions), hunting, fishing, church, God, and family.
In California, a lot of them believe in, 'doing what feels good', unions, that hunting and fishing are killing their 'brothers', homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, and massive government hand-outs.
I have no problem with that. But just as I don't go to California and try to get them to pass laws, they have no right to do the same in Texas.
For example, the majority of my meat that I eat during the year comes from deer, dove, quail, fish, shell-fish, that I hunt and gather myself.
The last thing I need is a law made in California telling me that I am killing my 'brothers' and that I only need to eat vegetables.
Same as I don't go to California and try to pass a law on bean curd.
That is (very) simplified 'states rights'.
:sleep:
Yeah, I dang near put myself to sleep but I hope this helps.

 

[billwald]

The states WERE nations before Lincoln's Revolution.

 

[rbell]

The states WERE nations before Lincoln's Revolution.

That's not accurate.

I mourn the loss of the rights reserved for the states as well...but they weren't nations.

 

[Winman]

That's not accurate.

I mourn the loss of the rights reserved for the states as well...but they weren't nations.

That's not true. Texas was an independent republic, and still retains the right of an independent republic. This is one reason it is called the "Lone Star State". Here is part of the annexation of Texas.

Annexation of Texas. Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States, March 1, 1845



28th Congress Second Session


Begun and held at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on Monday the second day of December, eighteen hundred and forty-four.


Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the state of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in Convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the states of this Union.

2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First-said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second-said state, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to said republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said state may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the government of the United States. Third- New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire. And in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

 

[Salty]

On the other hand, during the signing of the Constitution, Rhode Island was consdering not do so,

but evidently, the Feds said if they didnt they would be considered a foreing nation (cant find a reference for this off hand, any help would be appreciated)

Salty

 

[billwald]

Before Lincoln's Revolution, "state" was defined as "nation." The peace treaty with England was signed by each of the 13 states.

 

[Salty]

...New York, California, and Texas, there are 600,000 to over 700,000 residents per electoral vote. In small states ...there are about 200,000 residents per electoral vote.

This means that a person's vote is vote more than 3 times as much in Wyoming as it is in New York. Whatever happened to the idea of one man/one vote?

Where does the Constitution say one man - one vote. If that were the case, then the US Senate would be unconstitutional.

 

[billwald]

Do away with the electoral college and the US will be controlled by the New York, Chicago, Houston-Fort Worth, LA, and San Francisco metro areas. At least the rest of us would not be pestered by presidential electioneering.

 

[Salty]

Do away with the electoral college and the US will be controlled by the New York, Chicago, Houston-Fort Worth, LA, and San Francisco metro areas. At least the rest of us would not be pestered by presidential electioneering.

You do have a point

 

[rbell]

Do away with the electoral college and the US will be controlled by the New York, Chicago, Houston-Fort Worth, LA, and San Francisco metro areas. At least the rest of us would not be pestered by presidential electioneering.

Currently the election isn't controlled by these locales...but the "finalists" for the election are decided by the media outlets in the NY-DC corridor. By refusing air time for some candidates, or unfair coverage, they effectively give us the "final round" of choices.

Take the EC away, and it becomes much worse.

Just MHO.