Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» In all countries' elections EXCEPT IN AMERICA whomever gets the Most Votes WINS. Only in America does THE LOSER win. A**-backwards?
Did you know that in the US the citizens do NOT vote for their president? (23rd amendment to the constitution).
If they did, the voting wouldn't be fair. The most populous states (California, New York, Texas) would have an unfair advantage over the lest populated states. For example, there might be more people voting in California than in several of the smaller states combined. Then those smaller states wouldn't get a fair chance at voting and Californians would end up electing whom they wanted. Candidates would ignore the smaller states and only campaign in the larger states. This is why the electoral college was formed. With it, all states get a far share in the electoral process, not just the most populous states. Unfortunately, the rules for the college voting isn't fair. Those people are not required to vote as the people they represent did, but they can vote any way they please. In 2016, they decided to vote for who they wanted (were they bribed or were they just being a-holes?). That how an incompetent, pea-brained, egotistical, want-to-be dictator got put into office. Furthermore, the ones who are in power to make sure the president doesn't become a dictator (king), according to the constitution, are refusing to act. They are more interested in the 4 P's - prosperity, prestige, party and power - than listening to the will of the people (who elected them) or opening their blind eyes to see what's really going on around them. It's THEIRresponsibility to act when/if the president isn't acting in the best interests of the country or is trying to become a "king". That's what THEY are there for (it's in their job description). But I digress...
It's not the electoral college process that isn't fair, it's the rules governing the people chosen to represent the states in that college that's unfair. No group of people who hold that much power should be able to "do as they please". ... and now we can see why.
So are there not other countries with more densely populated areas and less? How do THEY manage it? Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Shuhak. Why would a state with very few people rate the SAME CONSIDERATION as a state with very many? How is THAT FAIR? SIGH.
Say one state has 1.5 million people and another state has only 1000 people (for the sake of argument, let's call them State "X" and State "Z"; and say that 100% of them vote). Come voting time, state "X" will alwayspick the winning candidate. Even if every person in state "Z" casts their ballot for 1 candidate, that candidate can never win unless sate "X" elects them (just by sheer number of voters). By "capping" the number of votes allowed (electoral college), smaller states still can have a say (instead of 1.5 million to 1,000 thousand, it's more like 25 to 5). That gives the smaller states a chance to "out-vote" the larger ones. (in theory)
I don't know about other countries. Some countries don't hold elections for heads of government (e.g N. Korea - dictator). Some countries are monarchies (e.g Burundi) Some countries have other government officials appoint their head of government (e.g. China). We do know that many elections worldwide are rigged (e.g. Russia).
So it's better for a candidate with fewer supporters to win than for the candidate with the most votes to win? My brain does not grasp that at all Shuhak. I'm not purposely being dense. I really don't understand why lesser fewer should be honored and greater more should be discounted. That is exactly what the electoral college does. Evens out to the lowest common denominator. Sheesh. Apologies but I think there is strength in numbers and value too. Trying to reconcile or accommodate or adjust will never make any sense to me. SIGH. I appreciate your thoughtful and informative reply though even though I don't get it! :(
That was how it was SUPPOSED to work. Unfortunately, the electorates don't have to listen to what the people want, they can vote however they wish (flaw in the system?). That's why we have a "toad" running (ruining?) the country now.
Don't worry about not getting it. It's a bit complicated. (Have you ever known anything that has to do with government that isn't complicated?)
Thank you m'dear. You are making excuses for my density which is the mark of a true pal. It seems the answer I often get to many kinds of questions I ask is always "it's complicated". SIGH. Some complications I like a lot to be honest with you. They challenge you to think things out and come to a conclusion after much consideration. Others? They make you feel really dumb. I guess we all have our strengths and weaknesses and that includes comprehending things. D'ya think there is more truth in simplicity than complexity? Or is it the reverse? I'm gonna ask. Thank you for your thoughtful and comforting reply Shuhak. I appreciate it! :)
A few observations here: 1. The desire and driving force behind every liberal is the over turning of elections that don't have outcomes they're pleased with. 2. You're going to have to come up with a better argument than the one above to gain any traction or headway against a system that's been in use for more than 200 years. 3. Most children understand points 1 and 2.
I don't even like the idea of voting. Period. I mean who gets to vote? People who don't even know why or what the issues are.
I think voting should need a test. If you cannot answer what the parties stand for, if you do not know anything about the person you are selecting, then you should not be able to choose him/her.
Period. I'm sick of this nonsense. No one knows squat and yet they have an opinion about who should run our government? This is hogwash.
If we cannot even get it together to get people who care enough to learn what the leaders of our nation should represent? They should not vote. PERIOD.
Enough with letting morons decide who and what matters. ENOUGH.
One of the privileges of citizenship is the right to vote - one person, one vote. People have died to make it possible. If you don't like it, move to China, Cuba, or Russia.
This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at December 27, 2018 10:15 AM MST
Conversely, Stu, is the right to decide not to vote. Just because a person exercises that right doesn't mean he or she doesn't deserve to remain in the country. ~
Case in point, Florida in 2000. Florida sends 29 electors to the Electoral College. Dubya won the state (allegedly) by a handful of votes - claims of irregularities still persist, 18 years later. A sane system would have sent 15 Republican and 14 Democrat electors from that State to the college, right? That's what the GOP won by. The Republicans got all 29 Florida electors.
No gerrymandering in statewide elections. It is not possible. So not in Presidential or Senate federal elections or elections for state Governor and statewide legislation. The lines are defined by the state borders which cannot be changed by the politicians looking make their seats more secure.
It is only possible in local and state Congress and Fed House. Because they can move the district lines in their favor which is the definition of gerrymandering.
In your example, it is up to each individual state to decide how they split their electoral votes. The majority of the states are winner take all as makes the state more important to win than if they were to split by popular vote which would normally be a basically ever split making that state of no importance at all.
This post was edited by my2cents at January 26, 2019 8:38 AM MST
~ 
Shuhak 