Although Hillary has greater than 1 million popular vote advantage currently. Funny system.
Yes and county by county trump won by something like 50:1 ratio across the country … . Reality is though neither of those are the counts that matter. This is why we have an electoral college. To ensure that the voices of the majority and the minority are represented. We may not always like the result, but it’s the system we have.
NOW they are pledged to do so. Those are later “innovations” on the original constitutional intent. I’m not arguing that they should be faithless electors, but just that the founding fathers never actually intended people to be pledged to a party.
I also think the issue with the electoral college is not that it should be done away with, but that the distribution of votes needs to be altered. There is no reason that someone from another state should have their vote count almost 3 times as much as mine does.
Doesn’t this come down to population size?
Each state is assigned a number of electoral votes according to its population. The number of electoral votes is set at 538. Each state receives one electoral vote for the number of members it has in the House of Representatives; this accounts for 435 of the 538 electoral votes.
number of representatives in congress— so its house reps # plus two senators for each state. Hence the smallest states have 3 due to their one representative and their two senators
yeah, I know, it’s roughly based on population because the electors = number of reps + number of senators. But I just think that formula means the level of power is disproportionate. Not like I have a better formula.
Each state gets 1 vote for each really cool (as approved by us) person in their state. Your state would have at least 1!
Depends on how you look at it. Your individual vote can potentially affect 55 electors while mine can only affect 3— through that lens your vote counts almost 20 times as much as mine.
Point is though that these concepts are exactly why the electoral system exists— without it the prevailing politics of the less populous states would have absolutely no voice.
IMHO, 1 voice should = 1 vote (popular vote). No matter how your state falls…your voice counted. It’s that simple to me. If the state/election falls in your favor, awesome. If not, oh well, better luck next time. But THE PEOPLE’S voice counted. If you are sad that your state lost, move to a state that favors your political affiliation.
That’s a fair proposal and maybe someday an amendment could be passed to reflect that.
Ask yourself this though-- if they counted all the absentee ballots and it turned out that the popular vote went the other way-- would you still think that? Or if the table were turned that trump was ahead in the popular vote and Clinton had won the electoral count by a rather wide margin-- would you still stand by that? If so then it’s a principle you really believe in… if not it’s just protesting a result because you didn’t like it
Honestly, I would prefer a popular vote either way because I really hate the fact that swing states get all the campaigning and pandering. I think that so much of the political process is artificially simplified by reducing the ground game to 10 major swing states. I’m pretty sure, for instance, that Clinton only flew into California a few times to pick up hefty campaign donation checks and never once set foot here for campaign purposes.
Yes. I would. I’ve not indicated my political affiliation to anyone here, so I would think it’s irrelevant.
I’ve heard you make this argument about 50 times on this (and other) threads so far…and I’ve read them all.
To best answer your question, I submit my previous comment.
I’m not known for much, but I’m known for being fair, reasonable and rationale. I think it would be fair…regardless of which election we’re talking about, past present or future.
I don’t think this is true. It’s not that Obama and Democrats want premiums and deductibles to be high. It’s simply enough that Congress has refused to implement price controls. The only possible solutions to lower prices are really quite simple:
Regulate the prices federally and give all US citizens access to national private (regulated) plans.
Allow insurers to sell nationally and have an “open market” and hope market “forces” and competition will bring down the price.
Democrats have wanted to do 1 (or a single-payer Medicaid option for all) but have not had the votes in Congress to implement it since the ACA was passed. Thus, insurance companies have raised the prices consistently each year until they are just too high for most people to afford. Republicans have wanted to take option 2, and now they can! We’ll all get to see whether it’s true that “market forces and competition will lower the cost of healthcare.”
For my money, I don’t believe it will. Partially because it’s unlikely that a Trump administration and a Republican congress will be interested in enforcing antitrust suits against insurance companies. I expect a repeal of the ACA (partial), an “open, cross-border market,” and prices to increase over the next five years. We’ll hear lots about how it’s due to the price of research (bullshit), the expense of covering poor and sick people (partially true), and probably due to the Democrats anyways (bullshit).
But, maybe it will work and we’ll all save money and have cheap insulin! Personally, I strongly suspect that Donald Trump does not give two thoughts in his entire life to sick, the poor, or diabetics. I just don’t think anyone is going to care about the price of insulin other than diabetics.
My comment isn’t pertaining to Congress or the President; rather, the American public. Most of the people who have problems or disagreements with Obamacare have problems with the cost/premiums that they’re being charged. I have asked several people who are die hard against Obamacare…what do you think about coverage for Pre-existing conditions? Well, I like that part. What about children being allowed to stay on their parents plan until they’re 26 so they can focus on college and getting ready for life? Yeah, that part’s OK, too. And do you think there should be a cap placed on how much coverage someone should be able to receive during their lives? No, I think you should be able to be treated as much as you need to be treated. So, then…what’s the issue? THE PRICE! THE PREMIUMS! THEY’RE TOO HIGH. PLUS…they don’t like to feel like they’re “being forced” into something.
As much as I agree with their last statement, I’m glad they’re being forced into it…it makes sure me (a tax payer) doesn’t have to foot the bill for them when they need to go to the emergency room for that accident that was unavoidable.
And most people don’t usually give thought to anything until it directly impacts their own lives. I, for one, didn’t know even what diabetes was until my 2 year old was diagnosed and I was immersed into this world.
I can tell you’re NOT a Democrat, though, and as much as we could debate “whose fault things are”, any sensible person knows there’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides for our current state of affairs. I won’t sling mud because this isn’t the place for it.
I’m no Democrat, true, but only because I’m a Socialist Used to even be registered when that was possible in my state… Grandfather was a union organizer in the mines.
I’m actually pro-single payer, period. Universal healthcare provided by the government. I see the ACA as a decent half-way point to getting there, and am afraid of its repeal. I’m also definitely not into arguing politics at this point, and have no interest in doing so. I’m just wary of the claim by Republicans that “Open markets and competition will fix healthcare prices.” If that were true, it would have happened years ago, before the ACA was implemented. It didn’t then, and I don’t see it getting any better now.
Is how our Veterans are handled by the Veterans Administration a good Case Study of what we can expect from Universal Healthcare?
Probably not, since that’s not Universal Healthcare. But as I said, I don’t want a political fight. You go on believing what you like, and I will as well. We’ll get to see how the Free Market solution works here in the next couple of years.
The time to discuss the politics of it will be before the next election. If things have gotten better, great! If things have gotten worse, then I guess we all have to make decisions the best we can.
Just a question, not a political fight. I’m open to anything that is sustainable, affordable, and provides the care we all need.