America’s democracy is failing. Here’s why.

[AUFriction 1,179]

21 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So the state's voice should outweigh that of the people?

Again my question come back to this: how can you justify someone in Wyoming having their vote actually count for more than mine or yours in an election where we are all voting for the same office?  Why is that person's vote more valuable than mine?

You initially asked a question about fairness.  Now having been shown that actually, the electoral college isn't inherently fair to every voter, you are changing the conversation to one of how the federal government works.

So which is it?

Also, your argument is that the state's voice is being taken out of the government.  Well no, it isn't.  That's what the Senate is for.

I feel like there’s a disconnect somewhere. I’m starting to feel like I’m sounding like a broken record. I’m also starting to think we are almost arguing on different planes or might be defining the construct of fairness differently. I’ll try this one more way though.
 

I’ve been trying to get across the point that what is fair is in part dependent on what the government is designed to do, not necessarily based on what it should be designed to do or how it should be designed. 

The goal of a federal government is to balance the interests of both the states and the people. In the legislature that is done by having two houses, one for the states and one for the people. In the judicial branch, that is done by essentially sticking to the enumerated powers. If it violates something in laws concerning those powers or in the amendments, the federal courts have jurisdiction. If not, it falls to state courts. (This is why state courts presided over most murder trials for instance.) In the executive branch, that balance is struck by having the presidential election decided by the people but in such a way that balances the collective will of the people with the will of the states. How we do that is with a representative democratic election or a democratic republican election... which is why we have the electoral college. That’s the system we live in. As long as we live under that system, striking that balance is what is fair. 

If the goal of our system is to allow the states to have a voice in federal politics, it is doing that successfully. Thus, it is fair under our political system. If that is not what we should be doing, we have to reset because this ^ is what our system is designed to do. If as a country, we decide that it is time to decide issues primarily on a national stage, we will have to rewrite the constitution. After doing so, the fair thing to do would be a direct election. But, under our current form of government, the electoral college is fair.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

I feel like there’s a disconnect somewhere. I’m starting to feel like I’m sounding like a broken record. I’m also starting to think we are almost arguing on different planes or might be defining the construct of fairness differently. I’ll try this one more way though.
 

I’ve been trying to get across the point that what is fair is in part dependent on what the government is designed to do, not necessarily based on what it should be designed to do or how it should be designed. 

The goal of a federal government is to balance the interests of both the states and the people. In the legislature that is done by having two houses, one for the states and one for the people. In the judicial branch, that is done by essentially sticking to the enumerated powers. If it violates something in laws concerning those powers or in the amendments, the federal courts have jurisdiction. If not, it falls to state courts. (This is why state courts presided over most murder trials for instance.) In the executive branch, that balance is struck by having the presidential election decided by the people but in such a way that balances the collective will of the people with the will of the states. How we do that is with a representative democratic election or a democratic republican election... which is why we have the electoral college. That’s the system we live in. As long as we live under that system, striking that balance is what is fair. 

If the goal of our system is to allow the states to have a voice in federal politics, it is doing that successfully. Thus, it is fair under our political system. If that is not what we should be doing, we have to reset because this ^ is what our system is designed to do. If as a country, we decide that it is time to decide issues primarily on a national stage, we will have to rewrite the constitution. After doing so, the fair thing to do would be a direct election. But, under our current form of government, the electoral college is fair.

Well I've never argued with you about how the country is currently set up.  I'm acutely aware of how it is and that it isn't going to change.  But the Founder's, in my opinion, got the EC wrong.

(It's important to note that the Founders had no expectation of capping the number of House seats too, which created a larger imbalance favoring smaller states in the EC.)

The EC is inherently unfair to the electorate based on the data I've provided.  It's not right to expect some to pay into the same federal tax code when their vote counts for less than someone else's.  That is modern day taxation without equal representation

It's not a state's issue.  It's an individual's one because POTUS and VP are literally the only two offices everyone votes for.  I don't get a say in another state's Senate race.  Same for their House members.  That's where more localized voices come into play, as they should, and how states are heard in the federal government.  But we all vote for two, and only two, offices.  Everyone's vote for those two offices should count equally and the EC doesn't allow for that.  That's the argument I'm making.

[AUFriction 1,179]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well I've never argued with you about how the country is currently set up.  I'm acutely aware of how it is and that it isn't going to change.  But the Founder's, in my opinion, got the EC wrong.

(It's important to note that the Founders had no expectation of capping the number of House seats too, which created a larger imbalance favoring smaller states in the EC.)

The EC is inherently unfair to the electorate based on the data I've provided.  It's not right to expect some to pay into the same federal tax code when their vote counts for less than someone else's.  That is modern day taxation without equal representation

It's not a state's issue.  It's an individual's one because POTUS and VP are literally the only two offices everyone votes for.  I don't get a say in another state's Senate race.  Same for their House members.  That's where more localized voices come into play, as they should, and how states are heard in the federal government.  But we all vote for two, and only two, offices.  Everyone's vote for those two offices should count equally and the EC doesn't allow for that.  That's the argument I'm making.

I do see your points. I just don’t think it’s right to make that change without reconsidering the whole system we operate in. Thanks for the debate, but I think we have hit an impasse. We see the issue of election fairness fundamentally differently.