Still confused about election process

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, GoldenEagle said:

@other one I suppose you are correct that it's the state that counts in a Democratic Republic. We claim to be the leaders of the free world and democracy in the USA but do not have a true democratic election?

Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

I don't understand this whole hick up over population centers. If every vote counted then it would be just as important for a person in North Dakota to vote as it would be in California or Texas right?

God bless,
GE

The concerns of a north dakota resident for what they want in a president are not the same as those in california. Given the vast disparity in the population, north dakota might as well stay home. They would have no say in who is elected. 

I do not see the current system as flawed. Even if hillary had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote. I see the wisdom in having our elections set up this way.

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, OneLight said:

Here is the problem.  One person, one vote.  It makes no difference where you are.  The issues derive from the culture of a particular area.  In AZ, you have different reasons to vote a certain way than I do in NH.

Let's look at California, the largest Electoral College body.  Hillary received 5,481,885  votes, and Trump received 2,965,704.  Instead of all 55 going to Hillary, why not split it up according to the real numbers?  Hillary would then receive 36 Electoral College votes and Trump would receive 19.  That would reflect the voters of California better instead of winner take all.

Let each state determine how they wish to handle the electoral vote, whether its split or winner take all. States rights are supposed to be important.

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, OneLight said:

That, my friend, is a defeatist mindset.  Let's say Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the Electoral College vote, all due to the archaic voting methods we hold to.  Would it not be better for the Electoral College vote be divided to the percentage of vote each runner won?

I do not see the current voting method as archaic. I view it as sound.

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, OneLight said:

As for Virginia, the pardon was for 60,000 people.  Hillary won by 185,690.  If the 60,000 were never pardoned, she still would of had 125,690 more votes than Trump.

The latest news article I read on it was sunday or monday, in which it was admitted that 200,000 were pardoned.

[nebula]

9 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

Problem with that is if we went entirely off the popular vote, then every election would be decided by population centers, like new York city, LA, Dallas, etc. If you lived in Wyoming or Alaska, you might as well not even bother going to the polls because your vote really won't count. Doing it this way gives low population States more of a say then a popular vote would, and the country being a republic and not a democracy, was setup more towards state control anyway.

Think of it this way. If we decided to only go off a popular vote, Clinton would be our next president. Our electoral college may not be perfect, but it's preferable to the alternative.

The way the electoral college works, though, the voice of the cities are greater than the voices of the rural and sub-rural areas.

In a state like PA for instance, it's usually gone blue because of Philly and Pittsburgh. Outside of those cities, the majority of the state is Conservative.

If they are going to keep this system, there ought to be a tweaking of the system to balance "the voice" out a bit.

[nebula]

6 hours ago, ayin jade said:

How is arizona surprising? Arizona has a history of voting republican in presidential elections. How is virginia surprising? Virginia governor pardoned hundreds of thousands of criminals at the last moment so they could vote, and they were expected to vote democrat. 

Here's another example - Virginia. Northern Virginia (the greater DC suburb) is a completely different state than the rest of Virginia (think NASCAR-loving!).

[nebula]

6 hours ago, other one said:

Hummm.....   these points that you see as a problem I see as the reason to keep them.....     Coming from a small state I do not want to see the large cities of California, New York and the Dallas/Fortworth and Atlanta dictate to the rest of the country thier wishes......

Please explain this.

California has a whopping number of electoral votes. It seems the larger state actually does have more dictatorial power than the small states.

[The_Patriot21]

9 minutes ago, nebula said:

The way the electoral college works, though, the voice of the cities are greater than the voices of the rural and sub-rural areas.

In a state like PA for instance, it's usually gone blue because of Philly and Pittsburgh. Outside of those cities, the majority of the state is Conservative.

If they are going to keep this system, there ought to be a tweaking of the system to balance "the voice" out a bit.

The cities are going to have the advantage anyway. In fact if you go with a popular vote the cites would have even more power than they do now. 

[OneLight]

25 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

The latest news article I read on it was sunday or monday, in which it was admitted that 200,000 were pardoned.

The 200,000 was done in April of this year.  The 60,000 was just done, so yes, together that would of made up the difference between the two candidates.

[ENOCH2010]

Why not go with land mass, say 50 sq. miles = 1 vote