Why do the states need this?
Because they are soveriegn and were promised this to allow themselves to be a part of the union of states that became the United States.
Let me repeat that - union of states - we are actually the United STATES of America, not the nation of America
Each state has the power to have a say in who leads that union and trust me, they are not inclined to give up that power.
And that power is one man one vote.
No. One man one vote only empowers the individual. It does not empower the states.
States are not alive.
States are sovereign entities that have been promised this power. They will not give it up.
Might as well ask them to just end their existance and meld into one big country and HOPE that the rest of the country respects their needs in their part of it.
Not gonna happen. We created a republic specifically to protect the soveriegn states, as much as anything else, and the sovereignty of the states has served the people of those states - no matter how many people were in those states.
This doesn’t follow. Right now, EC votes from a state are considered in the sum total of EC votes to determine the president.
Without the EC, the popular votes from a state are considered in the sun total of popular votes to determine the president.
Why do you think states have representation in one case but not the other?
Because the sum total of EC votes has to be gleaned from every state. That means that candidates have to acknowledge and try to persuade every state.
If it was just the highest number of votes from everyone, candidates would campaign in and try to please only the most populous states. That takes away the power of the lesser and smaller population states to be needed for the win.
Except they don’t.
And when they don’t they risk losing.
The 2016 election absolutely proves my point. Hillary won the popular vote but did not campaign enough in enough states to win the election. She virtually ignored the state of Wisconsin and barely went into Michigan and it cost her, along with her failure in other midwestern states.
If we had just a popular vote electing the president then she could ignore Wisconsin and Michigan and many other states without consequences.
And why would she not? Why would BOTH candidates not? The EC was the reason that Wisconsin was able to be heard by Trump. They actually MATTERED because of the EC and only so.
Marky, this is what you said:
There are plenty of reasons for the existence of states other than presidential elections. Surely you agree, right?
I’m saying that the states would not want to be a part of the union when you take away their sovereignty.
They joined the union because they were sovereign and that was one of the incentives to join the union - because they would remain sovereign. Otherwise they would have stayed a state unto themselves.
The EC is but one of the ways they remain sovereign and important to the union. They are never going to allow it to go away.
No, I understood. My point was that the EC is but one very small part of their sovereignty. You are the one who said there was no purpose to having states if there’s was no EC. I’m glad you are backing off that position.
The problem with this about fascinating point is that 2010 was allegedly a referendum on Obama and the 2000 seats lost was a referendum on Obama but suddenly midterm elections are not really about the president.
No he didn’t win the Senate. He kept it.
Again, doesn’t follow. The sum total of popular votes has to be gleaned from every state. That means that candidates have to acknowledge and try to persuade people in every state.
The guys that really pull the strings, that really control the agenda, are not republican or democrats. These guys own the companies that own the companies we hear of. They don’t concern themselves with day to day policies and politics. These are the big picture guys, with unfamiliar names. With the proper application of money and power, they influence the direction of our politicians, and there by, our country.
These are the people that want open borders. These are the ones that want the visa programs to run wide open. They want an over supply of employees, and consumers. Their goal is to keep the cost of manufacturing low, by keeping the workforce well supplied, and keeping as many consumers, people, as possible, to keep prices high due to demand.
They care little whether the public pays for their products, or they are purchased by the government as in welfare, food stamps, aid, etc.
It is supply and demand, and right now, they control both ends, while making all the money.
We can not just get rid of them. Our system would fall apart, but we are getting to a place where we need to gain more public control of the system that needs much more transparency.
States are merely given the inpression of sovereignty. They dont actually have it. The civil war should have illustrated that to you by now.
Too many people do not understand the Electoral College system.
It is much like the House of Representatives. It gives each state perportional “skin in the game”.
With out it states will no longer count. We will for all intents and purposes become a borderless country.
At first glance, that sounds great! That is unless you, or your area would like something in particular. A project, money, attention. Or maybe you do not want something. A landfill for a big city, a big wind farm, a freeway system running through your town, etc.
If your area does not have enough votes to make a big enough national impact, no one will hear your whisper.
The big cities, with all their votes, will get anything they want, because about 10 or 12 cities have more than 1/2 the population of the country.
If you do not live there, you, simply won’t matter!
You think our laws and policies should be dicatated by the amount of physical land available?
Because of the EC peoples votes don’t matter, only the EC does.