atheists: why do liberals say the electoral college system is unfair?

Question

the electoral college helps give a bigger voice to people in rural areas, there is an imbalance in america where more people live in big cities than live in rural districts and both types of areas have very different interests. in britain we benefit by having only 2 major cities and so the rural districts still have plenty of say in elections but in the states the rural dwellers have to battle against about a dozen huge urban areas in elections

Answer 1

The Electoral College doesn't have to reflect their area in the election. The electoral college voters are chosen and assigned to specific areas, and it is representative if they vote in accordance to that area's popular vote. We have something called unfaithful voters, where Electoral College voters can vote however they want, regardless of where they are assigned. If it went by popular vote, instead of Electoral Vote, then a vote in Wyoming wouldn't be worth 3x as much as a vote in California. In Wyoming, an Electoral Vote represents about 150,000 voters, and in California, one vote represents about 450,000 voters, so, three times as many Californians have a say in one Electoral Vote in comparison to in Wyoming, meaning each individual in California has 3x less influence. If we went by popular vote, then every single vote would have the same weight to it, regardless of where you are. Then we'd see the true political leanings of our nation triumph.

Answer 2

Why? Simple. The libs stay in the cities with the most free goodies. Many are on the dole. Whereas the hard working people of the land are more likely to not be taken in by the ones who just want to live on "other peoples money". Thus the constitution framers took time to make sure all would be fairly represented and not just the cities. Just look for yourself at exactly how the electoral college is apportioned. If you do, you will find it very fair and balanced. Libs? They are not concerned for anyone but themselves.

Answer 3

It isn't. The power of population centers is curbed by voting by State. It is just another way to guarantee minority rights and slow the pace of change. Six year terms for Senators and lifetime appointment for Federal judges is another way.



Democracy is curbed by Oligarchy. Either can by tyranny; they keep each other in check.

Answer 4

Because they lost.



Till now, they swore by it.

Answer 5

Because it is unfair; there's no reason why the vote of a person in a rural area should count twice as much as the vote of a person who lives in an urban area- that's saying that the interests of rural people outweigh the interests of urban areas and as you noted yourself, the U.S. has many large urban areas.

The electoral college exists to give more weight to the votes of slaveholders, an elite that really had no intention of relinquishing power to "the people" any more than Republicans, who continue to benefit from its existence, intend to relinquish it now.. Slavery no longer exists and the Electoral College is one of the shameful vestiges of its existence- time for it to go..

I really think that all anyone need do is to look at the current state of our county to understand why it needs to go.

Answer 6

Once the audit/investigation is complete on the elections, and the illegal votes are exposed and discounted, we may find that Trump also won the popular vote.

Answer 7

Actually, I remember conservatives complaining about it four years ago, not that it would have mattered. They thought Romney would win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. Obama still one both.

Answer 8

Because Hillary lost that's the reason for their hate of it. What does Atheists have to do with anything?

Answer 9

I have never heard a liberal say that and I doubt if you did. Trump's the asshoIe who claims elections are rigged and unfair. Why didn't you aks why Trump says that?

Answer 10

cause they'd rather have a commie dictator

Answer 11

What better way to get people involved in the elections than to actually have "their" votes count towards someone's election. The Electoral College was set up to enforce the two party political machine we have and to give government control of the elections.

Answer 12

It's an outdated system that was put in place by patrician slave owners who were afraid of letting the populace make its own decisions. Over the years, Republican scumbags have succeeded in gerrymandering enough districts to give an inappropriate edge to Republican candidates.



A direct popular vote is long overdue.

Answer 13

Propaganda designed to weasel in undefined political label:



"Atheists: why do liberals say the electoral college system is unfair? the electoral college helps give a bigger voice to people in rural areas, there is an imbalance in america where more people live in big cities than live in rural districts and both types of areas have very different interests. in britain we benefit by having only 2 major cities and so the rural districts still have plenty of say in elections but in the states the rural dwellers have to battle against about a dozen huge urban areas in elections"



Your premises:

Atheism is somehow related to electoral schemas.

The United States electoral system over-represents rural areas.

People in the United Kingdom (Britain) have elections.

There are only two major cites in the United Kingdom.

The British democracy has benefited from that.

There exists some undefined class of persons known as liberals.

Liberals in the United States believe the electoral system is unfair.



Your conclusion:

Please believe the term "liberals" represents a class of persons who are politically fair.



Your modus operandi:

"Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction. While this may seem stupid, it's actually an easy trap to fall into and is quite common... This is not the same as establishing initial axioms on which to build a framework of logic or ideas."

• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion



"Overgeneralization is a logical fallacy that occurs when a conclusion about a group is drawn from an unrepresentative sample, especially a sample that is too small or too narrow."

• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Overgeneralization



The terms liberal and conservative in themselves are meaningless political labels. When used by political hacks, agent provocateurs, and racists they usually take on meaning as follows:



lib•er•al

noun

1. A despicable person.

2. Not a member of my political party.



con•serv•a•tive

noun

1. A despicable person.

2. Not a member of my political party.



The opposite of those meanings are invoked from time to time by certain political hacks:



po•lit•i•cal la•bel

noun

1. An alleged political philosophy, e.g., "I am running for office as a ."

2. A slogan representing some political hack or party, e.g., "The movement is founded on common sense, decency, respect for the electorate and blah blah blah..."



The propensity to invoke meaningless political labels does not necessarily elucidate the motivation from which people dispense political propaganda. The source is unknown to me. There are many likely suspects:



-- Sincere but delusional beliefs from a member of the electorate.

-- Video infotainment/propaganda industry.

-- Professional racists (e.g., Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) working for same as above.

-- Foreign counterintelligence, e.g., China, Russia, Iran, Qatar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mexico.

-- Insincere—just some idiot psychopath who can read and write English.

-- Terrorist operative, e.g., Al Qaeda, Islamic State, La Raza Cosmica.

-- Domestic operatives working for a major political party or traitor mercenaries from same.



Terms of political propaganda typically are used in case stereotypes of human beings by color or ethnicity may fail when challenged with counter-evidence. To cover all challenges, the user can revert to vague political labels as a stereotyping tactic. Overall, the purpose is to turn human beings against each other.



The people who communicate that gibberish are enemies of humanity whether they will admit it or not. Nothing good can come from spreading contempt according to vaguely categorized stereotypes, or from encouraging people to think in terms of vacuous stereotypes and impossible assertions.



Lack of specific evidence linked to specific persons or dogmatic belief systems—the sort of things that shape perception, cognition, and action—makes such propaganda sociopathic, with no intellectual or ethical value.



There need be a definite chain of evidence and reasoning to justify castigating particular groups of persons.



lib•er•al

adjective

1. Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.



con•serv•a•tive

adjective

1. Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.



For example, although Barack Obama is often accused of being a liberal, he is a Bible-thumping creationist, about as conservative as one can get:



"... I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it, it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. . . . My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live -- that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true." -- Barack Obama, 2008

by Nick Wing, 21 November 2012, The Huffington Post

• http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html



Some may call him trendy. I hope the trend toward undue paranoid psychosis does not spread:



"There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often." – Barack Obama, 19 July 2013

• http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin



It has obvious adverse effects:



" 'I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today,' a person believed to be the gunman wrote. 'They Take 1 Of Ours . . . Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,' the post continued, ending with, 'This May Be My Final Post.' "

-- Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 20 December 2014, New York Post

• http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cops-shot-execution-style-in-brooklyn/



"Leaked pictures 'show Dallas killer's body' as police reveal chilling message written in blood... Warning graphic images: The 25-year-old Afghanistan veteran was blown up by a bomb robot following a standoff with police"

by Natalie Evans, Martin Bagot, 12 July 2016, Mirror online

• http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/leaked-pictures-show-dallas-killers-8401503

Answer 14

That is a very astute observation, however the original purpose was because the privileged didn't trust the decisions of the common man.



Not that any of that has anything to do with a non-belief in god. :)

Answer 15

If you actually came and lived here -- among those rural people -- you'd see things differently. Perhaps Britain doesn't have the same problem we do with its rural dwellers. Ours tend to be really backwards and think the rest of the world should be, too. If you don't agree, you aren't thinking clearly. These are the people who put an Orange Buffoon in the White House -- and he laughs at them!!