"The Rural Minority are a Core Threat"

[Hawkmoon]

Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? It's winner take all (for the most part) at the state level and electors are based off the state's population. It balances the weight of the states. If you'd prefer, I can ask why it should be balanced at the "electoral college" level but the arguments are essentially the same.

It's up to each state to decide if its electoral votes are winner-take-all or apportioned according to the popular vote.

Are you aware that in the beginning senators weren't elected by the people at all? As originally established under the Constitution, the House of Representatives was elected by the people, and the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. I'm still not certain the change to electing senators directly was a good thing (although, in my state, the legislature has been so heavily Democrat for so long that it wouldn't have made any difference  for several decades).

[DittoHead]

Are you aware that in the beginning senators weren't elected by the people at all? As originally established under the Constitution, the House of Representatives was elected by the people, and the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. I'm still not certain the change to electing senators directly was a good thing

I was aware of that, but don't really have a strong opinion on whether that was a good or bad change (although my gut instinct is that it's probably good - the old system seems like senators would be too insulated from the citizenry)

[MechAg94]

I was aware of that, but don't really have a strong opinion on whether that was a good or bad change (although my gut instinct is that it's probably good - the old system seems like senators would be too insulated from the citizenry)

It is my understanding that they were supposed to be more insulated from the citizenry.  There likely is some value to having someone in the FedGov looking out for state sovereignty and maybe going against federal mandates to the states.  Not sure if that would happen if we went back to that. 

[Hawkmoon]

I was aware of that, but don't really have a strong opinion on whether that was a good or bad change (although my gut instinct is that it's probably good - the old system seems like senators would be too insulated from the citizenry)

That was the intent. The House was supposed to represent the people, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.

[TommyGunn]

It is my understanding that they were supposed to be more insulated from the citizenry.  There likely is some value to having someone in the FedGov looking out for state sovereignty and maybe going against federal mandates to the states.  Not sure if that would happen if we went back to that.  

The point in state reps  appointing senators was to give the state, as a political entity, political power in Washington D.C.  That insured the STATE   had a voice.   The place for the PEOPLES'   VOICE   was the House.
Edit

Oooops...Hawkmoon beat me to it.   

[230RN]

I believe that the "reasoning" behind the change to popularly elected Senators was exactly that:  to "enhance" that glorious thing called "democracy."  After all, who could possibly argue against each person having a direct vote on everything?  Democracy, right?

This was directly opposite to what the original Congress saw as a valuable check against the inherent evils of a pure democracy.

Democracy is doomed from the moment the voters discover that they can vote to get largesse from the public treasury.  (I won't put quotes around that because I don't remember who said it, or if it's exact.)

[charby]

Saw this in a thread on Facebook

  Conservatism has died on its own. It simply became a platform for money lovers and power grabbers to use. We let them.

[grampster]

It's up to each state to decide if its electoral votes are winner-take-all or apportioned according to the popular vote.

Are you aware that in the beginning senators weren't elected by the people at all? As originally established under the Constitution, the House of Representatives was elected by the people, and the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. I'm still not certain the change to electing senators directly was a good thing (although, in my state, the legislature has been so heavily Democrat for so long that it wouldn't have made any difference  for several decades).

[/u]

And in Michigan where we've had 2 Democrat senators for decades, has a mostly Republican legislature for many years.