Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The reason why something is created is often different than the reason it persists. The USA has many examples of that principle - gun ownership being one of them. The continuing constitutional right to bear arms has precisely nothing to do with the likelihood of an attempt by the British to recolonise. In our own country, arguments for retaining the monarchy would be unrecognisable to someone like Alfred the Great. Both times in the last 20 years the mismatch between the popular vote and the college has favoured the Republicans. It remains to be seen whether a future democrat president will attempt to change it.
|
It's also favored the Democrats in 2012 although it didn't change the winner.
It's fair enough to separate the reasons as to why it was set up from why it should persist. I was addressing people who invoke the reasons it was set-up.
Anyway it shouldn't persist either because I don't believe the reasons people use are valid. First of all there is the argument you cited a few posts back that it helps people in smaller states be the focus of a campaign as opposed to high population areas. It doesn't. All it does it narrow the focus to a handful of swing states but with the exception of New Hampshire these states are actually pretty big. Look at this election. The campaigns focused on Florida (4th most populated state), Ohio (7th), North Carolina (10th), Pennsylvania (5th) and to lesser extents Michigan (9th), Nevada (35th) and New Hampshire (42nd). You have two exceptions there but otherwise the states that were paid the most attention where in the top 10 population wise.
The other argument people use is that it prevents the tyranny of the majority. As has already been mentioned it prevents the election being decided by those on the coasts. However the United States already has a mechanism for ensuring equality of the states - the Senate. Why does it need two? At what point does this become the tyranny of the minority instead?
In reality of course the election is decided by a handful of voters in a handful of the states. America is so partisan than only they matter as the rest goes blue/red no matter what.
---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
I find it bemusing that had the result of this Election gone the other way, Clinton wins by College vote, but Trump wins the Popular vote, the lefties would not even be bringing up this argument at all. They are trying any which way they can to try and steal the Presidency back to Hillary.[:
|
I doubt Trump would have taken an Electoral college defeat well either. He wasn't too happy with it in 2012 when it seemed, for a brief moment, Obama would win the election but not the Popular Vote.
By the way with your own argument the 'lefities' wouldn't be stealing the election. The Electoral College was designed in such a way that the electors can override the will of their states. This was the intention of the founding fathers. It's obviously a rubbish idea and not one I am advocating but an example of why the EC is stupid.
---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------
Anyway it's not all bad:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...n-us-kbtt33v2k
Quote:
He said that he wanted his country back but now Nigel Farage is planning to abandon it in favour of a new life in the United States.
The interim Ukip leader, who is due to hand over the reins to a permanent replacement on Monday, has told friends that he is preparing to emigrate with his wife, Kirsten. Despite a long-held interest in the US, he has felt tied to Westerham, his home town in Kent, and his family in Britain. His roles as an MEP and leader of Ukip have also made it difficult to be based abroad.
|