TexasCHLforum.com

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:00 pmI think that this solution would move in the wrong direction. Everyone's vote should count, and right now the system disenfranchises MOST voters in MOST states, urban or rural. An elected official who won 48 to 52% doesn't really represent the "Will of the people", and even an overwhelmingly popular candidate who secured 70% of the vote is still represents at most 2/3 of his or her district. First past the post voting creates situations in which a few states decide the outcome and in which the voters in most states and districts don't have a say.

I disagree and think you missed a major point in our governmental system. Our current system does not disenfranchise anyone because there never was intended to be a one man-one vote system in our country. We are NOT a democracy. In a democracy each vote counts equally and everyone gets to vote. Our country was formed as constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, people vote for governmental officials but it is not intended to be each individual vote counts equally. Instead there are rules in place to decide how to count the votes and take into account other factors than the individual vote. This was done to prevent what is called "the tyranny of the majority." Examples of this in our governmental structure include the way the house of representatives is constructed, the way the senate is constructed, and the electoral college.

An example of the tyranny of the majority that is particularly relevant to this forum would be gun control. If we had a democracy with every vote counting equally, a simple majority of the country could ban all firearms in the country. But the constitutional rules limit this from happening. If 26 rural states oppose this concept, their senators voting against it can block it, even though they only represent 17% of the population of the country.

While we may need to reform the electoral college, and we can certainly discuss if we want to make it more directly population related or to balance the disparity in populations, I have to say I would never want to live in a full democracy. I like our current form of government and want to keep it as a constitutional republic.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:27 pmIt will never happen, but the Constitution needs to be amended to provide for electing the President and VP by a simple majority of the states.

This is very close to what we have as a backup when the electoral college fails. If no one gets a majority in the college, the House gets to decide who wins. In the House, each state delegation gets one vote. If there is a tie, it then goes to the Senate, which cannot have a tie by the rules of its structure. I would not argue with eliminating the electoral college and going to this system.

I should also point out that the electoral college is not truly a winner take all system. Each state gets to decide how its electoral voters shall vote. Two states have the electoral voters vote how the house districts vote, with two going how the state votes. Several states (15 right now I think) have joined a compact that will allot their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. If we want to change how Texas allots its votes, it is something to tackle in the state legislature.

As a final point, almost in reverse order, I was taught in civics classes way back in high school that the original design of the federal government was that the House would represent the people. This is why they were directly elected. The Senate would be delegates of the state, which is why the states got to decide how they were appointed. The President and VP were supposed to watch for the interests of the nation as a whole. This is also based on there being a difference between a representative and a delegate in how much authority they have on various issues. In addition to having lost the concept of the difference in the houses, we have lost the concept of the Senate looking out for the state interests. And, we are losing the concept of the president caring for the national interests as a whole.

I guess I should also point out that the Democratic party is trying to destroy the nation as a constitutional republic. I am not talking about the socialist policies or anything similar. I am talking about the way they are trying to claim we have a democracy and that the republicans are trying to destroy it. The "every vote counts" and allowing every one to vote and pushing for more votes are all indicative to me that the Democratic party is trying to destroy the concept of having limits on what the majority can order. This is called the tyranny of the majority and our nation's founders were geniuses in writing a constitution that worked to prevent this from happening.