Faithless Electors Regain Legitimacy

I would rather not have the people of New York City decide an election for me in Delaware. The Electoral College guarantees all states have a say, not just the largest.
The Electoral College guarantees that fewer people in rural states have over-weighted influence on elections...

You're arguing for a tyranny of the minority --

The minority can't control where it lives and works. The minority still has a voice in the process and a viewpoint which should be respected and taken into consideration. I wouldn't call it a tyranny but saying that the opinions of New York City or Dallas or Los Angeles matter more than the opinions of the citizens of Anytown USA is a little hard to play off.

We consistently see this Us vs Them argument in politics, getting rid of the EC makes that argument a whole lot worse.
The minority's voice should be taken into consideration -- in proportion to its population.

But people who support the EC and the Senate want lower population states to have more voice and more influence than higher population states.

It's plainly undemocratic and sad.
No, they just want larger states to stop trying to take more and more influence from them. You may not care about the corn that grows in Kansas, but when the next President bans pesticides essential to protecting crops because NYC and LA have no idea how the farming works, you will start to care a lot more.
Oh JayDee, no one cares about Kansas.... not since Brownback worked his magic there. :p
But...Dorothy is from Kansas :(
Ah, the last time Kansas was in the cultural spotlight.... :p

I'm particularly harsh on Kansas because I'm from a neighboring state of theirs.
Missouri? That’s the only state I care about.
 
I would rather not have the people of New York City decide an election for me in Delaware. The Electoral College guarantees all states have a say, not just the largest.
The Electoral College guarantees that fewer people in rural states have over-weighted influence on elections...

You're arguing for a tyranny of the minority --

The minority can't control where it lives and works. The minority still has a voice in the process and a viewpoint which should be respected and taken into consideration. I wouldn't call it a tyranny but saying that the opinions of New York City or Dallas or Los Angeles matter more than the opinions of the citizens of Anytown USA is a little hard to play off.

We consistently see this Us vs Them argument in politics, getting rid of the EC makes that argument a whole lot worse.
I don’t understand. IF we elected a president by popular vote you would have one vote like everyone else...
 
I would rather not have the people of New York City decide an election for me in Delaware. The Electoral College guarantees all states have a say, not just the largest.
The Electoral College guarantees that fewer people in rural states have over-weighted influence on elections...

You're arguing for a tyranny of the minority --

The minority can't control where it lives and works. The minority still has a voice in the process and a viewpoint which should be respected and taken into consideration. I wouldn't call it a tyranny but saying that the opinions of New York City or Dallas or Los Angeles matter more than the opinions of the citizens of Anytown USA is a little hard to play off.

We consistently see this Us vs Them argument in politics, getting rid of the EC makes that argument a whole lot worse.
I don’t understand. IF we elected a president by popular vote you would have one vote like everyone else...
50% of the population lives in Urban cities that have no understanding of how the other 50% live and vice versa. The first 50% all take up about 10% of the landmass and rely heavily on the other 50% to stay alive without even realizing it.

Those people in the city talk about bathrooms and gender equality because they don’t have to worry about anything else. They talk about raising minimum wage and free college because they actually have the luxury of choosing their future.

Those people everywhere else talk about paying the mortgage and praying to whatever God hears them that it rains tomorrow so they have enough corn to harvest.

Those people in the city want to ban pesticides that are bad for the environment, the others need those pesticides to stop critters from destroying the crops that *you* rely upon to feed yourself.

You don’t understand? Yeah. I know.
 
The rural population hasn't been half of the US population since the 1910s -- Urban areas are closer to 80%....

1077


Rural areas just want to hold on to the special privileges they've gotten and use their overweighted votes to impose their will on urbanites. Let's call a spade a spade here.
 
Urban also includes metropolitan and suburban areas which tend to be politically split between city and non-city.

Even if only 2% of the population was rural, that 2% is essential to maintaining the land that the other 98% need in order to put food on the table. You act like having a majority automatically makes you right, I know a few wolves that would agree.
 
Urban also includes metropolitan and suburban areas which tend to be politically split between city and non-city.

Even if only 2% of the population was rural, that 2% is essential to maintaining the land that the other 98% need in order to put food on the table. You act like having a majority automatically makes you right, I know a few wolves that would agree.
And you act like just because a small group of people live in the farmlands, they should get more say than everyone else.... absurd.
 
Urban also includes metropolitan and suburban areas which tend to be politically split between city and non-city.

Even if only 2% of the population was rural, that 2% is essential to maintaining the land that the other 98% need in order to put food on the table. You act like having a majority automatically makes you right, I know a few wolves that would agree.
And you act like just because a small group of people live in the farmlands, they should get more say than everyone else.... absurd.
They should get a say in how they get to live without other people wagging their fingers about something they have no knowledge of.

And when that small group of people basically provides the food, one of the three essential necessities to human survival, for everyone else, you can bet I'm gonna want them to have a little protection. It's the same reason your mother, someone who (for an average family) only makes up 25% of the family, controls most of the decisions. She provides for the family.

Then again...I do think my mother might be a tyrant :p
 
Urban also includes metropolitan and suburban areas which tend to be politically split between city and non-city.

Even if only 2% of the population was rural, that 2% is essential to maintaining the land that the other 98% need in order to put food on the table. You act like having a majority automatically makes you right, I know a few wolves that would agree.
I don't know much at all about the USA, which is why I haven't been participating in this discussion. But it seems to me that the logical consequence of this approach, if taken consistently, would be to weight votes in proportion to the perceived value of one's job. Farmers are not the only people whose jobs are essential for the survival of a population; should we start giving more electoral influence to specific people depending on their job? That seems unfair to me. If everybody was a farmer, society wouldn't be where it is: in other words, not everybody can be a farmer, and that shouldn't mean that your needs should count less. Sure, it's important that leaders take account of the fact that farming is essential to the country, but that serves everybody's best interests. People in rural areas shouldn't get more say on every matter, whether or not it is related to farming.

/£0.02
 
Urban also includes metropolitan and suburban areas which tend to be politically split between city and non-city.

Even if only 2% of the population was rural, that 2% is essential to maintaining the land that the other 98% need in order to put food on the table. You act like having a majority automatically makes you right, I know a few wolves that would agree.
And you act like just because a small group of people live in the farmlands, they should get more say than everyone else.... absurd.
They should get a say in how they get to live without other people wagging their fingers about something they have no knowledge of.

And when that small group of people basically provides the food, one of the three essential necessities to human survival, for everyone else, you can bet I'm gonna want them to have a little protection. It's the same reason your mother, someone who (for an average family) only makes up 25% of the family, controls most of the decisions. She provides for the family.

Then again...I do think my mother might be a tyrant :p
So, you don't want actual democracy then, that's fine, just say that. You want rural areas to have a veto or more leverage over politics than "one person, one vote" -- sounds like we're all squared away then.
 
That's your two pence???

Anyways, I'm not talking about farmers because "they deserve more votes" I'm talking about them as representing the population in the middle of American that everyone tends to ignore and forget about. Of course, you're right about the fact that Farmers Joe isn't the only person essential to our survival, but he's definitely more important to keeping us alive than Environmental Lawyer Bob who thinks all chemicals are bad and must be banned everywhere.

You're right, I don't want an "actual Democracy." The Athenians tried that and it didn't work out too well. That's why we are a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. Democracy doesn't work, that's why they you don't see them in large numbers anymore.
 
Urban also includes metropolitan and suburban areas which tend to be politically split between city and non-city.

Even if only 2% of the population was rural, that 2% is essential to maintaining the land that the other 98% need in order to put food on the table. You act like having a majority automatically makes you right, I know a few wolves that would agree.
I don't know much at all about the USA, which is why I haven't been participating in this discussion. But it seems to me that the logical consequence of this approach, if taken consistently, would be to weight votes in proportion to the perceived value of one's job. Farmers are not the only people whose jobs are essential for the survival of a population; should we start giving more electoral influence to specific people depending on their job? That seems unfair to me. If everybody was a farmer, society wouldn't be where it is: in other words, not everybody can be a farmer, and that shouldn't mean that your needs should count less. Sure, it's important that leaders take account of the fact that farming is essential to the country, but that serves everybody's best interests. People in rural areas shouldn't get more say on every matter, whether or not it is related to farming.

/£0.02
Most people in rural areas don't actually farm, btw.... -- most farming is done by major agribusinesses with high-tech machinery and some automation.

Whereas farmers used to be:
72% of the US population in 1820
64% of the US population in 1850
30% of the US population in 1920

They are now:
2% of the US population in 2008
 
Urban also includes metropolitan and suburban areas which tend to be politically split between city and non-city.

Even if only 2% of the population was rural, that 2% is essential to maintaining the land that the other 98% need in order to put food on the table. You act like having a majority automatically makes you right, I know a few wolves that would agree.
I don't know much at all about the USA, which is why I haven't been participating in this discussion. But it seems to me that the logical consequence of this approach, if taken consistently, would be to weight votes in proportion to the perceived value of one's job. Farmers are not the only people whose jobs are essential for the survival of a population; should we start giving more electoral influence to specific people depending on their job? That seems unfair to me. If everybody was a farmer, society wouldn't be where it is: in other words, not everybody can be a farmer, and that shouldn't mean that your needs should count less. Sure, it's important that leaders take account of the fact that farming is essential to the country, but that serves everybody's best interests. People in rural areas shouldn't get more say on every matter, whether or not it is related to farming.

/£0.02
Most people in rural areas don't actually farm, btw.... -- most farming is done by major agribusinesses with high-tech machinery and some automation.

Whereas farmers used to be:
72% of the US population in 1820
64% of the US population in 1850
30% of the US population in 1920

They are now:
2% of the US population in 2008
Which kinda emphasises the point ... putting more influence on rural votes gives more influence to people other than farmers' votes too
 
Again, I was using farmers as a reference point to exemplify my argument.

Accordint to WorldAtlas, the US has 4.5 million retailers, 3.5 million cashiers, 4.5 million salespersons, and 2.7 office employee. Four of the most widely populated professions to date.

What does this data mean? Absolutely nothing. Their lives still matter as much as the other 300 million people and if those other 300 million people decide to gang together and screw over this 20 million because they think they hold some sort of higher moral authority then you bet your ass I will side with the 20 million.

And those people other than farmers matter too. They have land, they have jobs, they pay taxes, and collectively, regardless of their collective population, they make up for 90%* of the US' land. Land is very important and I reckon people living there know how to manage and protect it better than I do, which is why we still listen to what they have to say and don't let megacities decide elections on their own.

*A rough estimate made based on electoral maps broken down by county
 
Last edited:
Again, I was using farmers as a reference point to exemplify my argument.

Accordint to WorldAtlas, the US has 4.5 million retailers, 3.5 million cashiers, 4.5 million salespersons, and 2.7 office employee. Four of the most widely populated professions to date.

What does this data mean? Absolutely nothing. Their lives still matter as much as the other 300 million people and if those other 300 million people decide to gang together and screw over this 20 million because they think they hold some sort of higher moral authority then you bet your ass I will side with the 20 million.

And those people other than farmers matter too. They have land, they have jobs, they pay taxes, and collectively, regardless of their collective population, they make up for 90%* of the US' land. Land is very important and I reckon people living there know how to manage and protect it better than I do, which is why we still listen to what they have to say and don't let megacities decide elections on their own.

*A rough estimate made based on electoral maps broken down by county
By that logic, why not divide up the electoral votes based on how much land each state has... Or maybe only allow people who own land to vote. That'd definitely guarantee that people who know how to work land get their say.

This whole line of thinking is absurd. One person, one vote. Proportional representation is the only logical method of representative democracy.
 
Last edited:
I mean hey, if you want Alaska deciding every single election then go ahead. I'll try to stop you at every point along the way, but you're free to try.

The electors are allocated by population because, just like allowing popular vote to decide, deciding by land size would give all power to larger states. That was something the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid, not encourage. Popular vote gives all the power to states with larger populations. Unfortunately, those tiny little states with less than 1 million people are still important and deserve to have a say in how our country is governed.

The only thing my logic argues is that people in cities should not be able to control Federal elections and "proportional representation" would. If proportional representation is so logical, why do we have the Senate? Why was Athens sacked by the Spartans? Why did innocent women die because everyone thought they were witches?

You might say that these are all extreme examples that will never happen again. If, God forbid, you really do say that; you are a fool.
 
Did I really need to add an /s to my absurd land-based voting hypothetical.... -_-

If proportional representation is so logical, why do we have the Senate? Why was Athens sacked by the Spartans? Why did innocent women die because everyone thought they were witches?

Got any strawman arguments that aren't from 200+ years ago? ...
 
Okay, phew, you wanted this discussion @JayDee so here it comes!

50% of the population lives in Urban cities that have no understanding of how the other 50% live and vice versa. The first 50% all take up about 10% of the landmass and rely heavily on the other 50% to stay alive without even realizing it.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Your experience has instructed you to highly value food production, and that's great, and it is important. But the idea that one group "relies on" the other is extremely misleading.

Where is farm equipment engineered, built, and produced? Even if the answer isn't in cities, which it increasingly isn't, where is the capital raised to fund the purchase of said equipment? Moreover, which areas provide the tax revenue to subsidize farmers and agribusiness conglomerates who produce the food?

It's a cycle, and at any point it could breakdown and leave both urban and rural people in a lurch. It's not one group of people depending on another, everyone is depending on each other.

Those people in the city talk about bathrooms and gender equality because they don’t have to worry about anything else. They talk about raising minimum wage and free college because they actually have the luxury of choosing their future.

I've lived in a large city on a below average wage. It is hard. In every job I've ever had in a major metropolitan area, I've taken public transit (and remember, I'm on the west coast). I've ridden trains with cooks, teachers, housekeepers, and yes, surely bankers and investors and lawyers as well. But the idea that people in "the city" care about these issues because they have no other worries, is just wrong.

We care about these issues because we are actually exposed to people who are different from us, whereas rural areas are nearly 80% white, overwhelming cisgender, and so it's possible to demonize or disregard people who hold concerns immediately different than your own.

None of us out here own property, so every week we have to take in enough money to pay rent and basic needs or we are homeless. So we understand the importance of a high minimum wage (whereas 82% of rural Americans own property).

There are pro's to living in cities which is why we do it, but man the overwhelming majority of us would love to see more "luxuries" you're talking about!

Those people everywhere else talk about paying the mortgage and praying to whatever God hears them that it rains tomorrow so they have enough corn to harvest.

Those people in the city want to ban pesticides that are bad for the environment, the others need those pesticides to stop critters from destroying the crops that *you* rely upon to feed yourself.

There are plenty of ways that we can innovative and get creative with farming that doesn't involve some of the really dangerous side-effects of some pesticides.

I actually have no idea why you chose this hill to die on, because I think nearly everyone in the world would agree they don't want harmful pesticides draining into their water supply, soil, killing other sources of food like fish etc.

You don’t understand? Yeah. I know.

What I do understand though is there is absolutely no reason for people in rural America to get an outsized voice in the choosing of policy outcomes. We are all in this together. We all have different concerns and experiences, and those need to be heard, but at the absolute same frequency please!
 
As a person with a retired extension agent for a mother, I'm a bit biased with it comes to agriculture, but I do agree with JayDee. We aren't a democracy. We never have been; true democracies don't work. Voting purely as majority unfairly affects states with low population. The interests of one large state may not be the interests of a smaller state (according to population), but the smaller state's interests should still be weighed fairly.
 
I haven't really paid attention here but this "true democracies don't work" argument is bullshit because there has never been a true democracy tried to showcase whether or not the government form does work. People will try to tell you that Ancient Athens was a "true democracy" but that's only true if you don't count women and slaves as people. There has never been a 100% direct democracy ever and it's not because it "doesn't work", it's because human beings are inherently selfish and don't want to deal with having to placate to others' desires. The problem isn't the form of government, it's the people who are in the government.
 
Back
Top