Reply #41: Nonsense

[tkmorris]

First of all in your scenario in 2000 let's hypothetically just grant Bush 25000 more votes in Florida. He wins it outright and no legal challenge or USSC ruling ever takes place yes? But he STILL would have lost the popular vote by a largish margin. So, does he deserve the presidency?

In your scenario you argue that the smaller states would be disenfranchised in a way if the vote were simply a popular one. But isn't the will of the people more important than some esoteric "states rights" issue? If the vast majority of the people live in one state than why on earth SHOULDN'T their votes determine the outcome?

I live in Delray Beach Florida. I have no idea what the population is here but let's call it 50k. Do I think that Delray should count as much as New York city? NO! One person, one vote. New York matters more than Delray because more PEOPLE live there.

Let's throw another hypothetical at you. Say that you have 3 states, each with equal electoral votes. In the first 2 states only 3 people live in each. 2 of the 3 in each vote for candidate 'A'. That's 4 votes for 'A'. In the third state there are 50,000 people. They ALL vote for candidate 'B'. However, due to the wacky electoral college, candidate 'A' wins with 4 votes versus candidate 'B's 50,002. Is this just in some way I am not privy to? Of course not! It's nonsense.

Yes I hear you. This is a ridiculous example. In the real world though the injustice is just the same though on a smaller scale. To hell with what "states" want. States don't matter, people do. Count the people. No matter what state they live in.