Tories 1 Labour 0

[datsunaholic]

I thought it was obvious. It's objectionable that the popular vote winner in each state wins all that state's Electoral votes. We don't like THAT "winner takes all" idea. But extend winner takes all across the entire nation, and THAT is OK.

Because if you abolish the EC, it doesn't matter what the percentage of votes one way or the other go per State. Counting by State, County, Precinct, etc is just an exercise in statistical analysis and is useful for campaigns, but doesn't matter for final vote tallies.

If you take a bucket with 100 red marbles, a bucket with 100 blue marbles, and another bucket with 100 blue marbles and pour them all into one bigger bucket, you still have 200 blue marbles and 100 red marbles. It doesn't matter what bucket they were in originally. It just makes them easier to count if you have smaller buckets with less marbles in them (which is why votes are counted at the county or precinct level).

Hence why the winner take all for the entire country is the ONLY fair method. You can only have one president.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I thought it was obvious. It's objectionable that the popular vote winner in each state wins all that state's Electoral votes. We don't like THAT "winner takes all" idea. But extend winner takes all across the entire nation, and THAT is OK.

Hence why the winner take all for the entire country is the ONLY fair method.

Whatever. The point (which once again seems to be agreed) is that some forms of winner-take-all are acceptable but the same people who are happy with that don't want it applied in other cases. And that works either way round.

Those happy with "state-electors-belong-to-the-majority-in-each-state" don't want "state-electors-belong-to-the-majority-across-the-nation". And vice versa.

It wasn't a loaded statement but (i thought) an unobjectionable, not worth discussing observation. Depends whose ox is being gored. No pun intended

[ex-khobar Andy]

Per Meade:

Those happy with "state-electors-belong-to-the-majority-in-each-state" don't want "state-electors-belong-to-the-majority-across-the-nation". And vice versa.

That really is not what this discussion is about. The issue is that state electors in Wyoming represent 73,000 voters each while state electors in California represent 400,000 each so in the Presidential election, each Wyoming voter counts 5.4 times the weight of each California voter. In the 'advise and consent' Senate which approves all Presidential appointments it's even worse: each WY voter has 68 times the heft of each CA voter. These are of course the two ends of the scale but it's ridiculous.

It's true that the Constitution allowed the US to become the most powerful nation on earth for the last 100 years. But because it is so revered, and because it is so difficult to amend meaningfully - the smaller states who benefit from the 'two senators each' rule and its consequences will NEVER vote to reduce their own power.

The population of the US is about 335 million. There are 100 senators. Thus on average every pair of senators would represent about 6.7 million people. So every state with a population of >6.7 million is shortchanged in the senate. There are 17 states with >6.7 million.. (Indiana is the smallest of these.). For a constitutional amendment you need 3/4 of the states on board- which means that for an amendment to correct the obvious antidemocratic nature of the Senate and EC, you need 20 of those MD to WY smaller states to sign up in addition to the 17 which might feel shortchanged. And here Meade is correct - ain't gonna happen. Never.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Per Meade:

Those happy with "state-electors-belong-to-the-majority-in-each-state" don't want "state-electors-belong-to-the-majority-across-the-nation". And vice versa.

That really is not what this discussion is about.

To belabor the thing tiresomely . . . I know what the discussion is about. And the above "wasn't a loaded statement but (i thought) an unobjectionable, not worth discussing observation". All I I wanted to convey was that folks have conflicting views about majority rule depending upon which majority it is and where - state vs national. I wish to heck I'd not tossed that nugget on the pile. This time I really will drop it.