2020 Presidential Race

#34,678
#34,678
volfanhill said:
And the FF’s understood this. But you had to cobble an agreement together to get all the states to sign on. So here we are. Also, by their original design, senators were not to be selected that way. The only federally elected people by popular vote would be the House. But, in their wisdom, they left a way to change their document. Have at it.
Click to expand...
I would like to see a repeal of the 17th. Also would like to see our reps increased about 10 times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#34,679
#34,679
DC_Vol said:
There’s a difference between Federalism and most state government structures.

A state could certainly implement such a system. Your state used to have a system similar to the Electoral College at the state level.
Click to expand...
States certainly cannot. Each and every attempt has been struck down by the Supreme Court....including my state.
The supreme court insists on this one man/one vote and all counted equally concept.
 
#34,681
#34,681
luthervol said:
Some state voices do mean more than others and it's based on population.
Is that fair?
Do you think each state should get an equal say in the election?
Click to expand...
We have a method for equating how each state has a fair voice. States don't have an equal number of electors. More populous states are given more electors. The FFs had to find a way to balance the power of an individual with the power of a state. This is the most fair way they could come up with. I see it as much more fair than letting two states rule fifty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#34,688
#34,688
If a state gains nothing from being part of the Union, why should it remain in the Union? Other than Lincoln unilaterally decided they had to?
 
#34,689
#34,689
luthervol said:
States certainly cannot. Each and every attempt has been struck down by the Supreme Court....including my state.
The supreme court insists on this one man/one vote and all counted equally concept.
Click to expand...

I did not know the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Seems odd it’s a no no at the state level but OK for the country.
 
#34,690
#34,690
Weezer said:
We have a method for equating how each state has a fair voice. States don't have an equal number of electors. More populous states are given more electors. The FFs had to find a way to balance the power of an individual with the power of a state. This is the most fair way they could come up with. I see it as much more fair than letting two states rule fifty.
Click to expand...
So you think the population of a state should determine the number of electoral votes?
More populace states get more votes?
So more populace states do carry more importance, just not a one person, one vote ratio?
 
#34,694
#34,694
volfanhill said:
You have me curious. Why the increase in the house?
Click to expand...
In 1776, there were 65 Congressional Reps for 2.5 Million people. 1 rep for every 39,000 persons. Now that the number is fixed, there is about 1 rep for 750,000 people. That is too many people for 1 person to adequately represent. We should go back to smaller groups of represented citizens. I might have an opportunity to have my voice heard and I would likely get better representation in our federal government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, mr.checkerboards and volfanhill
#34,696
#34,696
luthervol said:
So you think the population of a state should determine the number of electoral votes?
More populace states get more votes?
So more populace states do carry more importance, just not a one person, one vote ratio?
Click to expand...
Do you not understand how the Electoral College works? How it was designed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#34,697
#34,697
McDad said:
In 1776, there were 65 Congressional Reps for 2.5 Million people. 1 rep for every 39,000 persons. Now that the number is fixed, there is about 1 rep for 750,000 people. That is too many people for 1 person to adequately represent. We should go back to smaller groups of represented citizens. I might have an opportunity to have my voice heard and I would likely get better representation in our federal government.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, do you have a set number of people per rep, or would you rather it be decided by percentage of an area?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#34,698
#34,698
McDad said:
In 1776, there were 65 Congressional Reps for 2.5 Million people. 1 rep for every 39,000 persons. Now that the number is fixed, there is about 1 rep for 750,000 people. That is too many people for 1 person to adequately represent. We should go back to smaller groups of represented citizens. I might have an opportunity to have my voice heard and I would likely get better representation in our federal government.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the history lesson. Never heard that argument before. I now have to wrestle with the merits of your point and my hatred for growing government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackCreekVol, McDad and mr.checkerboards
#34,699
#34,699
mr.checkerboards said:
All you've done is state the same question over and over while myself and others, have given you many reasons why things are the way they are. Im still waiting on your first valid argument.
Click to expand...

You never answered my question. Why do people who live in metropolitan areas or large states deserve less of a vote than you? Do you have a problem with one person, one vote?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top