It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An idea to reform the electoral college.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Currently, electoral votes are determined as such. The total number of electoral votes in the Electoral College is 538. It is determined by three parts, according to the Constitution Article II, Section 1, amended by the Twenty-third Amendment. The first number is the 435 in the US House of Representatives. The second number is the 100 in the US Senate. Third number is the three electoral college votes given Washington, D.C. by the Twenty-Third Amendment. The power to elect a president changes every ten years by the decennial census. The census is based on population, literally the people, and it changes power in the states as they change over time. The US Census of Population is not a count of citizenship, voting, history or militias. It is used to reapportion the number of each state delegation in the US House of Representatives, so at the same time, it changes the power to elect the President.

I really don’t have a problem with the electoral vote process and typically it does a good job of representing the entirety of a nation. More and more however, were seeing big population centers dictate how the rest of the state votes at the presidential level. But that’s not really my concern, my concern is how a states overall effectiveness as a state in the union should be considered when allotting their total number of electoral votes.

There would have to be a way to quantify certain data used to determine how many electoral votes a state gets. Let’s use California for example. Their GDP is $2.4 trillion. Yet still they have about a $30 billion deficit. Their immigration standards are abysmal. And the education is ranked in the lower half of the national rankings. That ranking varies depending on what report you read but they all have California in the lower half.

So my point here is, perhaps we should find a way to quantify a states overall value to the union based on several factors. I’m not the expert, and it’s certainly open for debate as to what those factors could be. A weighted GDP? (I say weighted because land locked states are at a heavy disadvantage in that regard). Education rankings? Voter happiness? Debt or surplus ratios? Crime rates? Voter fraud reports? Whatever...put the most relevant information in the scoring categories, quantify data, and come up with an electoral score that the state gets.

Using California again,they had 55 electoral votes in 2016. Yet based on their deficit, educational rankings, crime rates, etc...it’s possible to assume that they don’t represent the best standards and interests in national elections. They’re overall population would of course warrant them many electoral votes, but it shouldn’t be the only determining factor. Especially when many of those votes come from illegal citizens.

This is just a thought. And I’m putting it out there for discussion/debate. Also, I’m using my cell phone so linking data isn’t a real possibility at this moment. But I am curious, what does ATS think? Are there any statisticians who think the data can be quantified fairly across the board? Is it fair to factor in more considerations beyond just population size?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

(Mods,my apologies if I put this in the wrong forum)




posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I like what you're saying... But like anything else, the numbers will always be skewed. Take for instance how we calculate the unemployment rate, it has been changed in recent years to make the rate look better.

I take away from this thread... Why would we give more of a voice to a state that cannot take care of itself. It would force the state to change in its ways or people may simply move.
edit on 29-1-2019 by GraffikPleasure because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

That's the take away I was aiming for, yes. I find writing a thread on my cell-phone difficult because it takes so long to scroll up and down to keep my thoughts in line. So it probably didn't come out as clear as I would have liked it too. But that is the premise.

I was born in California. Was raised in Wyoming. I have lived in Texas, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Colorado and Ohio where I now reside. The only 3 states I have yet to visit are Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont. Once a person gets off the interstate they'll find that each state really is unique. California is a poorly ran state that I don't think deserves 55 electoral votes when they can't even govern themselves. Some might say Montana, Idaho or Massachusetts are quantifiably better states based on all sortable data.

I feel like it would motivate states to get their collective #### together. It might create a competition with political incentive in regards to debt management, crime prevention, educational reform, and give the people more power with their votes. Basically like saying "We want our electoral vote to count so make our state better or we have reason to vote you out of office!" That's where voter happiness would be a great measurement in the electoral equation, assuming it can be done accurately and without manipulation.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Most of our voting problems would be solved if:

1) Needed verified ID to vote across the board regardless of state
2) Voters need to qualify, must pass basic civics test to show basic knowledge of our systems. If this type of test is appropriate for immigrants it is appropriate for voters of all stripes. People who can't name the three branches of government should not be voting.
3) Term limits for congress and senate. No more than three terms in Congress and 2 in senate.
4) No lobbying allowed for 10 years after serving office



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Assassin82

You haven't presented a good reason to change it. Right now it's a compromise between 1 state, 1 vote and population. I say stick to the keep it simple principle.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

I used California as one reference. Maybe Illinois can be used as another. If you don't live in Chicago, your vote doesn't really matter. Well, maybe if more went into the weight of that electoral vote, their voices might matter more. If politicians need to start generating more tax revenue through the exporting of farming crops for example, then it might behove them to boost up their farming jobs and infrastructure instead of pissing money away on welfare projects that go to waste in the urban environment. Conversely, if they need to boost up their education rankings to increase their electoral score, they would target the poorest school districts for improvements. Often times, though not all the time, urban school districts in big cities are the worst. Educate those children better and you're going to minimize the need for welfare.

As it stands right now there's no political motivation for states to improve many of these areas. When it comes to the electoral process, that's when politicians would start to sweat over their ideological impact. And that's why I present a potential method to light a fire under them.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I like where you are going with this.

Because I think the electoral college is flawed. However, I don't have a better idea and I hate to just whine.

My personal vote has never counted towards the Presidency. It is frustrating. At the same time I understand that is because I have never voted democrat in a very democrat state. I understand the electoral college was invented to make sure populations were not drowned out because they are in the minority.

I wish there was a way to go towards more of a 1 vote equals 1 vote while still protecting minorities. I want their voice to be heard, but I also want mind heard.

Although if we went with merit, my vote would probably county even less - stupid Illinois



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

You're clearly racist. But I would be in favor of this idea.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that. You have not presented good enough reasons to change it. It's not going to happen. Now back to the real world.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Most of our voting problems would be solved if:

1) Needed verified ID to vote across the board regardless of state
2) Voters need to qualify, must pass basic civics test to show basic knowledge of our systems. If this type of test is appropriate for immigrants it is appropriate for voters of all stripes. People who can't name the three branches of government should not be voting.
3) Term limits for congress and senate. No more than three terms in Congress and 2 in senate.
4) No lobbying allowed for 10 years after serving office


It drives me insane as to how one can vote without presenting an I.D. I will never understand how people are ok with that. I'm all for a voter qualification test. I'm all for term limits and I despise lobbying. Though, in fairness it's the shady lobbyists who overshadow the ones out to do well for the country by it.

I don't disagree with any of your points. My point is more about reforming the overall weight of each electoral vote to better represent the overall weight and effectiveness of the states to which they represent. Make them earn their electoral vote on more than just population size.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   


Most of our voting problems would be solved if:


1. Ban politics.

2. Ban politicians.

3. Term limits.

4. Reading and comprehending what's written in the Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendments.

99% of the snip that goes on, wouldn't.
edit on 29-1-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Assassin82
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

That's the take away I was aiming for, yes. I find writing a thread on my cell-phone difficult because it takes so long to scroll up and down to keep my thoughts in line. So it probably didn't come out as clear as I would have liked it too. But that is the premise.

I was born in California. Was raised in Wyoming. I have lived in Texas, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Colorado and Ohio where I now reside. The only 3 states I have yet to visit are Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont. Once a person gets off the interstate they'll find that each state really is unique. California is a poorly ran state that I don't think deserves 55 electoral votes when they can't even govern themselves. Some might say Montana, Idaho or Massachusetts are quantifiably better states based on all sortable data.

I feel like it would motivate states to get their collective #### together. It might create a competition with political incentive in regards to debt management, crime prevention, educational reform, and give the people more power with their votes. Basically like saying "We want our electoral vote to count so make our state better or we have reason to vote you out of office!" That's where voter happiness would be a great measurement in the electoral equation, assuming it can be done accurately and without manipulation.


Every major city would bring their state down. I can't think of single big city that isn't filled with crime, welfare, and liberals. I love your idea, but I can guarantee you that the left would find a way to cheat the system. None, and I mean NONE of the democrat controlled counties would qualify in the top 2,500 of the 3,142 counties in America.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Maybe look at the way the state of Maine handles it. I think one other state does it, too.

In the last presidential vote, their EC even had a split vote! They only get four votes, and for many years they've voted the same way... but they don't *need* to, which means even though major cities still dictate what the EC will vote, they do so to a lesser extent. I suspect it's a bit more complicated than that, of course, but the mob rule of the big city shouldn't be allowed to make all the decisions for the state. What makes sense in heroin park down town doesn't always make sense in the hundred acre wood up north.

Last time around, one of the four voted differently- and I think that's great. Let the EC votes go for regions- give the people a voice again... not just the screaming hard left city folk.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Assassin82

That's a state problem. Fix it by changing the state. Don't destroy the entire federal structure for a state's internal issues.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I think your missing the point. The state is a part of the union. Each state carries varying degrees of weight in the electoral college. Make each state more accountable in the determination of how much weight they carry into the electoral process. If you want to go that route, then categorical data could only be defined by federal impact. For instance, if they rely on federal funding for their education system, then their education system factors into their electoral weight.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Such a sound rebuttal. Enjoy the real world and tell everyone I said hello.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
If you pay taxes to the IRS, you should be able to vote on how that money is spent. One man, One vote. EC spells BS.
edit on 29-1-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Assassin82

From the Grammar Nazi to the Thought Police, I like the way you think. It's unfortunate that the left will find a way to cheat the system every time.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

I think the reason to change it was implied in that certain states may harbor and include non-residents in their population. Recently Trump was shut down by a court in attempting to add a question to the US Census inquiring if they are a legal resident. ETA: also it was implied that the poorly run states for which the other states need to account for should be accountable to other states until they get their checks in order.

Suppose my state was reckless and endorsed exploiting the labors of illegal immigrants, and the number of undocumented persons was collectively more than the population of 4 other states combined. Is my state effectively cancelling out the representation and voice of 4 other states using the voice of non-citizens and is that not a threat to equal representation in a federated republic of representative democracy? What if such an imbalance existed that the economic impact required other states to contribute to the welfare of the non-citizens through federal subsidies and they don't have a voice to do anything about it? Or what if they are in fact citizens, and the burden of the economic losses are thrown on the backs of other states?


edit on 29-1-2019 by drewlander because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2019 by drewlander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Assassin82

I agree that California (where I live) is out of control and the east side of the state is essentially in a taxation without representation mode. Cali has far too many people to have electoral votes all put in one basket. This is why we need to break it up. I support most efforts to do that such as the State of Jefferson, New California, etc.

The same arguments for having an electoral college apply when a population this size is at the mercy of the big city voters who want the government to provide for them.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join