You are arguing that the Democrats cheated more than the Republicans, or "better". Do you have any evidence of this? This needs to be evidence from the past election, not Chicago in 1962 or something.
Citation required.
> I cannot possibly prove any of this to you.
So why bother saying it?
You have no evidence that USPS function "favored" Democrats.
You are perpetuating the lies that have been told by the former president and his supporters for the last 2+ months.
This is false, and the core of the criticism of the EC. Each state gets 2 votes independent of its population, which is biased toward small population states, and for over a century the definition of states was constrained by a compromise to protect slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
The same approach (all states having two senators) biases the Senate in favor of low population states.
This appears to have been intentional on the part of the founders, but that doesn't make it right.
[ EDIT: s/two/three/ ]
So big states couldn't bully around small ones.
How is that not "bullying"?
How does that play any role in an actual democratic nation, as opposed to some pre-Lincoln concept of the US a series of independent states merely "unioned"? The answer is obvious: it doesn't.
39,510,000/55 = 718363.636364
In addition, there's 0 reason for the house to be as malapportioned as it is. 435 house members isn't written in the constitution.
Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any longer.
People like to pretend the founders were deities and the constitution is handed down from god. But they weren't and it wasn't. A lot of their ideas were really stupid. I mean JFC, we couldn't even get through 3 elections before they had to redo it.
Vermont has a lot more in common these days with California than it does North Dakota. The EC and Senate are outmoded relics from a stupider time that should be abolished.
No. It had to do with Connecticut, New Jersey and other small population states who wouldn't have ratified the Constitution unless there was state representation (as we have in the Senate) to balance out the representation by population (cf. The Connecticut Compromise[0]).
The southern states had (or expected to have) large populations, and as such, wanted representation by population.
History and facts matter.
The Southern States were underrepresented in the Senate compared to the House by the initial apportionment in the Constitution, represented at very close to the same ratio in each House in the apportionment for the 1790 Census (largely reflecting that they had been overrepresented relative to population, in the House, in the Constitutional apportionment), and substantially overrepresented in the Senate compared to the House after the 1800 Census.
They were well aware of the imminent demographic trends and acted accordingly.
> History and facts matter.
Indeed they do, but the history and facts aren't on the side of “the Southern States had large initial and expected future populations as counted for apportionment in the House and, so by-State representation in the Senate was contrary to, rather than designed to serve, their regional interest.”
That's orthogonal to the concerns of small population states, in 1787, when the Connecticut Compromise was adopted.
What's more, the results of 1790 and 1800 Censuses didn't impact support or opposition to that compromise, as they hadn't been performed yet.
>by-State representation in the Senate was contrary to, rather than designed to serve, their regional interest.”
Which is the flip-side of the coin to what I said.
The key term is "now". After getting about 40m more votes. Be honest. Is that balanced?
To say the Republicans have any kind of advantage right now except for maybe the courts is incorrect.
As another user said: "The Senate is split 50-50, but the 50 Democrats represent 41 million more people than the 50 Republicans"
You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.
The United States was designed as a representative democracy on purpose by the forefathers. That is fact.
And the argument is that this democracy isn't sufficiently "representative", since it doesn't represent everyone equally. Indeed that's an explicit non-goal.
> You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.
But you can agree that the rules of the game are rigged against one side. You don't get to deny that just because you're winning.
There are many other representative democracies that do not have any of these "features".
Also, I thought a reply ago, you stated that the left was winning, not losing.
This has nothing to do with Orwell. Im not sure why you bring him up.
The forefathers designed the system this way. I agree with the way it was designed. It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.
I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.
Because saying "it's a representative democracy" is doublespeak. If you have one person representing tens of millions and another person representing a small city (~150k people), and they have the same vote, it's not meaningfully "representative". Saying "it's a representative democracy" doesn't tell you anything about the fairness of the system.
> I agree with the way it was designed.
Because it favors you. It would be a bad system even if it was the other way around (i.e. it favored the other side).
> It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.
I'm still to hear a good argument for why it's better for small states to call shots instead.
> I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.
I'm fine with that. They were as fallible as anyone else and could not have foreseen that their system might have flaws. There's no need to deify them and think that everything they did was right.
Similar logic applies to the Senate: regardless of population every state gets two senators. Right-wing senators have received fewer actual votes (by individual voters) than left-wing senators for years, yet in that time right-wing control of the senate has been more common than left-wing control. Right now the split in the Senate is 50-50 (Vice President, a Democrat, breaks the tie) but the total number of votes cast for Democratic senators was much higher than the number cast for Republicans.
You literally have to deny reality when you deny that the electoral college and the senate represent a structural advantage for Republicans right now.
Reality is we are representative democracy. The forefathers deliberately designed it that way.
Reality must line up with your arguments. It does not.
If what you say is true, Trump would most likely be president right now.
Dems own entire cities with the largest population centers. Dems have better organized grassroots. Dems have California and New York, the main stream media.
What advantages you speak of are moot compared to those ones.
We are a representative democracy and we always have been.
The EC was more than a compromise, it was an integral part of a system that prevents too much power being handed to any one institution or demographic. And forcing national candidates to appeal to a multitude of states rather than a handful of cities has a moderating effect.
If anything, what's outdated about the EC is we need more checks on the political influence that is centralized in cities because the founders didn't anticipate urbanization.
The electoral college does not matter. They go the way their states go as was made quite clear in the last election.
EDIT: Of course it matters how the voting system was designed. The EC votes the way their State votes.
The forefathers intended for states to have some say in the matter. We are a representative democracy. That is how the system was designed.