Kudos to the President

That would be even worse, though. Candidates would only campaign in densely populated areas. New York, California, Texas, and Florida would effectively choose the President every single election. The 16 least populated states represent about the same number of people as just Florida and it’s only the 4th most populated state.

The Electoral College isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s much better than a popular vote especially for someone on the right side of the equation.

1 Like

I have a very hard time convincing myself that the voting system gets worse when every vote has the same weight. Then again, I’m a strong proponent of democracy, not a broken republic where being born into a highly populated state means your vote doesn’t matter as much.

I fully understand the electoral college almost exclusively benefits the right. I like to think I’d feel the exact same way if it only benefited the left.

2 Likes

Truth be told, I think he tried (unsuccessfully) to walk a non-partisan tight-rope. Either side would have accused him of rank bias, regardless of what he did.

Can’t say I like what he did in any capacity, but I do have some sympathy for Comey, who swaps which half of the country hates him on a weekly basis.

So are you in favor of getting rid of the senate and going to a popular congress also? because the vote weighting of congress is an order of magnitude higher than the electoral college.

1 Like

Again it wouldn’t equalize things, it would just weigh the interests of those in cities in the coast over everyone else. Look at a map of counties by who voted for who, it’s overwhelmingly red outside of coastal cities.

non-sequitur

I hadn’t really put much thought into it (as that part has no chance of chaning), but yes I’d be in favor of that.

You mean it would weigh the interests of every citizen the same. I don’t give 2 shits about “the states” if you have to give actual citizens the finger to make it “equal.” Citizen rights > state rights (imo)

If everything is decided by the majority, minority people and views are necessarily suppressed. The weighting of areas ensures minority views get some say.

1 Like

No doubt. But that’s the main reason for hewing closely to departmental precedent–you can look people in the eye and say ‘We did what we did because we do what we do.’ It’s when you eschew longstanding policy and start improvising that you leave yourself vulnerable to difficult-to-rebut accusations of partisanship.

I don’t believe we should need “weights” for voting. 1 vote = 1 vote = 1 vote. It’s not that complicated to make every vote equal. Again, I’m in favor of a equal Democracy. I understand, and accept, that not everyone else is.

No question. But a candidate with an active investigation (now it is revealed to have been both) was a rather exceptional departure from the norm.

“Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.”

The Moonie newspaper reporting on something someone said in their blog? I had no idea the evidence was so compelling and thoroughly vetted.

3 Likes

Its as compelling as evidence that can exist after only a few months.

This study from 2014 concluded the 2008 election had 1.2 million votes

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

I probably shouldn’t have used the word “worse”. The electoral college gives more weight to votes in less populated areas so that those votes, really those states, actually matter. In a straight popular vote they really don’t. The wants/needs of Idaho’s 1.6M people would be overshadowed by the wants/needs of Florida’s 20M people. Idaho would just be ignored as would probably 40%+ of the states.

Conversely, if we use a popular vote and you’re born into a less populated state, then politicians won’t even bother with you or your state and your state’s cumulative votes mean almost nothing compared to the votes cast by highly populated areas.

Like I said, effectively, four states (maybe a few more) would choose the President. At least now, states like Ohio and Pennsylvania matter.

It only benefits the right because of how rural v. urban votes tend to occur.

You should care about the states. They’re a pretty important piece of this whole federalism thing we do here and they’re just as much a check on Federal power as any other check and balance.

If you are in favor of the majority always having their way, it means you are in favor of the minority never getting anything. You are anit-minority.

Viewpoints also matter. The governance that Alaska needs should matter even if it’s different than what California needs and Alaska is 1/20th the size. The system is set up to make Alaska’s needs matter in the national government. In your system, Alaska’s needs would never have any relevance in the federal government and Alaska would be governed by Californians. That’s not good. Californians lives and needs are completely different than Alaskans.

1 Like

Look at it from a different angle, it’s an additional check against authoritarianism, which almost exclusively arises from populism.

Exactly.

Given (as you acknowledge) that both candidates were under investigation, but only one was publicly excoriated, your argument can do nothing but undermine itself. That is, being under active investigation is either not that big a deal (otherwise both or neither candidate’s investigations would have been discussed), or it is a big deal, and Comey’s selective excoriation of HRC was intended to benefit Mr. Trump (in which case said excoriation loses all credibility).

Wasn’t Comey summoned to Capitol Hill specifically to testify in matters related to HRC?

The election of Mr Trump directly belies this argument.