Let the states count there votes and cast there one vote, thatway politition can't just cater to large cities.
2007-12-06 12:35:01 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
not true, look it up more 50 states are represented. go google
2007-12-06 12:48:59 · update #1
if all that is true then why even give recognition to ND ALASKA SD because they don't have enough people , there fore not equal. if GWB gets cal ny tx fl ma and ill gore getall the rest then bush wins?
2007-12-06 12:55:54 · update #2
Ok CA vs WY 33 million vs .5 million
then should we also give CA 7 time the tax barket sence they use 7 time the resources? if Wy has .5mil cars on the road vs 733mil incal gas in CA should be $45= a Gal right. thats fair because wy is so small.
2007-12-06 13:29:54 · update #3
besides sucking up global resources is cali helping montana pay for the high prices of fuel, heating oil 6 time the size and wealth california helped drive up?
2007-12-06 13:39:59 · update #4
what happened to all men are created equal. not the ones who can get the biggest gang together. Try harder
2007-12-06 13:48:18 · update #5
There are an even number of states.
Foresee a dilemma?
2007-12-06 12:37:12 · answer #1 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Electoral college is a device it somewhat is used in preliminary vote casting ranges. case in point, identifying on the Democratic/Republican Presidential Candidate. So, the Electoral college makes a decision if Hillary or Obama is going up against McCain. How does this vote casting artwork? The Electoral college does vote for states. If California has fifty 5 Democratic Electoral votes, then you somewhat upload that to Ohio's 24 Democratic Electoral votes, and so on. ok, area 2. The Electoral college, easily takes the votes, and counts them. If the vote is 50 Hillary and fifty one Obama, then it rapidly turns into Hillary 0, Obama one 0 one. do no longer ask my why. one greater vote will somewhat impact who turns into President or no longer. only positioned, the Electoral college is a sturdy way of determining who "performs interior the main suitable around". There are not any 2d tries.
2016-11-13 22:13:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would be grossly unfair.
Majority Rules
The Electoral College should be changed to If a Candidate gets 2/3rds the votes in a state, they should only get 2/3rds the Electoral votes from that State. The rest being divide equally among the other candidates as per their %age of votes.
2007-12-06 13:00:45 · answer #3 · answered by OG 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's not really fair. Are you saying that Montana, with a population of 600 thousand people, should have just as much power in deciding who the president will be as California, which has like 36 million people? We live in a Democracy my friend. What you are suggesting is not very representative at all. Each person's vote should weigh just as much as anyone else's.
2007-12-06 13:24:50 · answer #4 · answered by spartan-117 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because some states have tons of people and some states have hardly any people. For example, if a politician wins California, it should count for more than if they win North Dakota, not the same. It wouldn't make any sense if those states were considered equal in their voting power. I'm not a big supporter of the electoral college system anyway, I'm all for popular vote. The most votes wins, seems simple enough, right?
2007-12-06 12:41:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The voice of the people would have even less representation then it does now. Why should 12 million people in Ohio, or 9 million people in Michigan only have 1 vote and Hawaii and Rhode Island with fractions of the population would get the same.
2007-12-06 12:46:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A state that has over 33 million inhabitants would have the same vote as a state with less than half a million (CA vs WY) - that isn't representative or fair.
2007-12-06 12:39:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Because the Constitution of the US is a compromise between small states who wanted a plan like yours and big states who wanted representation based on population.
This compromise built our union and should be kept.
2007-12-06 12:45:08 · answer #8 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
its not the large cities... its the amount of people in those cities... why would say Delaware get the same vote as California.. our government is for the people not the state.... larger cities have more people thus more votes... makes sense.
2007-12-06 12:40:44 · answer #9 · answered by benartny 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
becaouse the whole reason why U.S goverment is cut in two is to make the large state and small state have equal power. if they do what you say then it would be unfair to large states since there are more populations. but then if you don't have the seneate it would be unfair to state like alaska since compared to california it is 53 to 1
2007-12-06 12:40:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you think Voters in Rhode Island should have 50 times as much say as voters in California?
2007-12-06 12:39:34 · answer #11 · answered by Gary W 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋