• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Mexico aboard the National Popular Vote train

AlphaOmega said:
Don't quote me anymore please. I won. If I didn't you can post the math to prove me wrong. You can't though because the math is with me. Its very easy. Remove all independent votes. Then tell us who won.
Click to expand...

yes...just like your messiah Trump declare yourself the winner...even though you are wrong. You've learned well.
 
iguanaman said:
Because the President is leader of all States not just New Mexico. You do understand this is just a way to choose a President by popular vote like most democratic nations do today. All votes should count equally don't you think? 78,000 voters in 3 States decided the election in 2016. Is that a fair way to decide an election in a country with 300 million people?
Click to expand...

Using that logic then we should get rid of the Senate since it gives small states equal representation to large states and just have the House pass bills by a simple majority. The US was not designed to be a pure democracy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Using that logic then we should get rid of the Senate since it gives small states equal representation to large states and just have the House pass bills by a simple majority. The US was not designed to be a pure democracy.
Click to expand...

What exactly makes tyranny of the minority preferable to tyranny of the majority? The House and the Senate, together, makes sure the interests of both small and large states are kept in check. The electoral college on the other hand fails both sizes of states, small states still don't matter and larger states are robbed of representation. Why shouldn't New York City gets its 2.6% (LA's 1.2%, and keeps on declining from there, not as many people live in the largest cities as you think) of the presidential vote, if you are going to choose the president by a system involving the popular vote? Why should the vote of someone living in California or Texas count for less than someone living elsewhere in the Mid-West?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Using that logic then we should get rid of the Senate since it gives small states equal representation to large states and just have the House pass bills by a simple majority. The US was not designed to be a pure democracy.
Click to expand...

We have changed plenty to keep up with the times. The idea that we are not a democracy and shouldn't be is not realistic and has no basis. We now elect Senators by popular vote why not the highest office in the land?
 
Carjosse said:
What exactly makes tyranny of the minority preferable to tyranny of the majority? The House and the Senate, together, makes sure the interests of both small and large states are kept in check. The electoral college on the other hand fails both sizes of states, small states still don't matter and larger states are robbed of representation. Why shouldn't New York City gets its 2.6% (LA's 1.2%, and keeps on declining from there, not as many people live in the largest cities as you think) of the presidential vote, if you are going to choose the president by a system involving the popular vote? Why should the vote of someone living in California or Texas count for less than someone living elsewhere in the Mid-West?
Click to expand...

The same reason that even the smallest state gets 3 EC votes - each state's EC power is the total of its congressional representation (2 Senators and however many House representatives that they are assinged based on the latest census). The fact that most states choose to allot their EC votes on a winner take all basis (within that state) does not matter - it is still better than saying that a given state's EC votes will all go to whoever wins the popualr vote (overall?) even if that differs from the POTUS candidate chosen by people voting within that state.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same reason that even the smallest state gets 3 EC votes - each state's EC power is the total of its congressional representation (2 Senators and however many House representatives that they are assinged based on the latest census). The fact that most states choose to allot their EC votes on a winner take all basis (within that state) does not matter - it is still better than saying that a given state's EC votes will all go to whoever wins the popualr vote (overall?) even if that differs from the POTUS candidate chosen by people voting within that state.
Click to expand...

The electoral college is a broken system. You didn't answer any of my questions. What exactly makes voters in populous states less worthy for voting of voting in presidential elections? If the popular vote is going to be ignored, why even bother. Why do the least populous states get a much larger say in who is president than they should when every American is equally affected?
 
Carjosse said:
The electoral college is a broken system. You didn't answer any of my questions. What exactly makes voters in populous states less worthy for voting of voting in presidential elections? If the popular vote is going to be ignored, why even bother. Why do the least populous states get a much larger say in who is president than they should when every American is equally affected?
Click to expand...

The problem with your (bolded above) assertion is in convincing enough of the lower populated states to amend the constitution to remove the EC system. The answer to all of your questions about the effect of the EC is by the design of the EC itself. As I tried to point out to you before, the US Senate is even more "biased" towards the lesser populated states - should it be abolished as well?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem with your (bolded above) assertion is in convincing enough of the lower populated states to amend the constitution to remove the EC system. The answer to all of your questions about the effect of the EC is by the design of the EC itself. As I tried to point out to you before, the US Senate is even more "biased" towards the lesser populated states - should it be abolished as well?
Click to expand...

The EC doesn't benefit the smaller states currently either they are still irrelevant, all states but the swing states lose. The EC fails to accomplish its goal while also depriving citizens in larger states of representation. I have many problems with the US system of government. Tyranny of the minority is not a solution to the tyranny of the majority. I don't think the president should be elected at all, there should be a president selected by the Senate and the vice-president appointed as head of government elected by the House.

Either drop the whole popular vote thing all together or reform it to actually balance the interests of both small and large states.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom