I am trying to understand the conservatives who say 'mob rule should not determine who is president'. Why should the minority who pay the least taxes get the bigger say? Why SHOULDN'T the majority decide the elections? And don;t bring up the women's movement or equal rights movement, as back in the day, women and minorities didnt vote, or didn;t get a full vote. Those days are gone, everyone gets a vote.
2007-07-09 06:38:53 · 8 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I should remind everyone that I thumbs down everyone who doesn't answer the question, and I thumbs up everyone who does, whether I agree or not.
2007-07-09 06:44:59 · update #1
suthrnlyts, how is that different from wealth distribution?
2007-07-09 06:45:57 · update #2
farms are subsidized by tax dollars as well, to compensate
2007-07-09 06:47:28 · update #3
topdawg, I know WHAT you say, I need to know WHY you say that. Why should they have more say? Doesn';t this rule make it less likely for a candidate to go to populous states, if they realize they dont; need to? Like BUSH?
2007-07-09 06:49:19 · update #4
first of all, the whole reason for having an electorate in the first place is so that the small states have a say in the election. if mob rule determined the president then the presidents would not even bother to campaign in say rhode island. they would just campaign the large states like Texas. It is not a matter of taxes, it is a matter of being fair to the small states.
edit:
no it does not make them less likely to go to the large states because the large states have a large say in who gets chosen. right now a president only needs to get the largest 17 states to win the election, while it takes the other 33 smaller states to get anywhere close. so therefore the large states are still the most important, but since they tend to be hard to get all 17 of the large states the presidents to be are forced to go to small states to get enough of them to win. but if the electorate is gotten rid of then a president can win by just having a landslide win in say, california, and not by winning any other state. basically what it boils down to is the electorate is a compromise to benefit the smaller states and it is the lesser of 2 evils...
2007-07-09 06:46:31 · answer #1 · answered by topdawg3748 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The era of the Electoral College should end. We have the technology to quickly count a vote, even if 100 million people are voting and arrive at a correct count.
There is no reason *not* to have true majority rule determine election outcomes.
This will also stop politicians from focusing on a few key states (NY, CA, TX, etc) as opposed to appealing to a true majority.
2007-07-09 06:56:59 · answer #2 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe we do still need an electorate. With tech today, every of age citizen should get a vote, and the popular vote should determine who is elected. Because someone (or some state) pays more taxes, it doesn't mean thier vote should count for more. Our election system is one of the worst in the world. Change is needed badly.
2007-07-09 06:52:14 · answer #3 · answered by writenimage 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Primarily because if the red states became industrial states vs farming states, we'd run into problems with our food supplies. We are the states with the lower wages, generally lower taxes, and less populated as a result of having little industry. It's actually a good balance. We can't have both.
2007-07-09 06:44:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Blue states pay more in Federal revenue and Red states TAKE more. Just the way they like it!
And they call liberals/Blues "commies". For shame,hypocrites!
I agree. The majority of taxpayers should get a say. If the Red State liberal haters hate them so much then NO MORE BLUE STATE TAX REVENUE!
Fair? Balanced? Its about time!
2007-07-09 06:43:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
comparable because of the fact the deficits, all of the main important ones are below republican administrations. Then they convey about interior the "tax and spend" democrats to restoration issues so the conservatives can injury it back. i'm bored with it. i'm balloting for Obama (back) so he has a raffle at an prolonged term restoration.
2016-10-20 10:36:24 · answer #6 · answered by smyers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agreed. The rules need to change. The redstates have too much influence over the ones who actually produce the wealth and opportunity in this society.
2007-07-09 06:48:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hmm, this sounds eerily similiar to the arguments given supporting poll taxes.
2007-07-09 06:43:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋