Changing the Electoral College

While I do support the Electoral College(EC) because it gives rural states like Wyoming a voice against states with huge urban cities like California and New York, I do think it is critically flawed and changes are necessary in order to keep the general elections fair. The biggest problem is one party is essentially guaranteed 84 votes to start because California and New York always vote for the Democratic Candidate.

I propose that instead of a winner take all system, the EC votes are split proportionally with how the state's general population voted, but require at least 20% of the vote to qualify for any EC votes.

If this one done in the 2016 election, instead of California and New York giving 84 votes to Hillary, California would have 37 votes to Hillary and 18 to Trump, while New York would have 18 to Hillary and 11 to Trump. Instead of 84-0, it would have been 55-29.

This also gives the rural areas in New York and California a voice that is currently drowned out by 'mob' rule.

I have not done the math on every state to see if it would have changed out come. Also a standard needs to be made to figure out a fair ratio due to 3rd party votes and the top to candidates percentage not adding up to 100%.

a reply to: jrod

The states can use a allocation by Congressional Districts already if they want.

a reply to: jrod

Did you send your idea to your congressman ? You should, unless he or she is democrat.

a reply to: jrod

As it stands now Republicans in California and New York know their vote is worthless. The states should be split up as they are causing a monopoly on the electoral college.

a reply to: jrod

A simple percentage of votes = percentage of electoral votes would work for me.
Seems fair, anyway.

Still won't put a stop to gerrymandering but better than mob rule.

Idk, they were so smart back when....the founding fathers....they saved us from the certain dictatorship of an evil crap sucking sludge loving 2016 Clinton disaster...smart old boys

a reply to: jrod

Wouldn't using this method take the swing states and make them irrelevant.
Trump won Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc...and their electoral votes.
Split those votes and we have president Hillary....

You might as well just use the popular vote to determine the election.
I'll pass...

That would be all right to me to split the vote within the state, right now most of Northern California is not properly represented. It would still be a problem for small states representation though, because some only have a few congressmen, and how would you split Senators when there is only two of them, ten percent would get one senator?

I cannot see this being usable in the Senate. Maybe in the House where the number of representatives is based on population. That confuses things though and may cause more problems than what we now have.

a reply to: jrod

Change it to a system where EC votes are done by counties. That way everyone in America has a voice.

It's up to the individual states how their Electoral College votes are supposed to be allocated, but SCOTUS tells us Electors are free to vote as they please when it comes time for them to cast ballots in December after the general election.

I'm not sure the 10th amendment would allow a consistent nationwide Elector allocation scheme, but I definitely see strong objections to abrogate Electors votes to a nebulous, uncertified "national popular vote winner". Basically, Colorado can just stay home because their votes aren't going to count at all with their new popular vote schemes.

ganjoa

Kick the EC system into the curb where it belongs - you do not send your electorates per horse at Washington D.C. anymore.

One person, one vote. Count them like every other civilized country.


The EC system opens the doors to gerrymandering and a multitude of other undemocratic ways to mangle the votings.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jrod

Change it to a system where EC votes are done by counties. That way everyone in America has a voice.

Our founding fathers originally had it set up that land owners had the vote. That was changed since then. I do like your county idea, since many of our states are quite varied demographically within individual states, it would be more accurate for votes to count nationally or would some states just simply divide and multiply their county seats to get more votes?

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Kick the EC system into the curb where it belongs - you do not send your electorates per horse at Washington D.C. anymore.

One person, one vote. Count them like every other civilized country.


The EC system opens the doors to gerrymandering and a multitude of other undemocratic ways to mangle the votings.

Why? So we can have the fraudulent version of Democracy as the UK? I think those who voted for Brexit would agree.

a reply to: jrod

Democrats depend on CA and NY, since only big cities vote for the left, they'd never go for this. That's why they only go for eliminating the EC.

Think about it. County wise, Trump won 2,626 Counties while Clinton only won 487.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jrod

Change it to a system where EC votes are done by counties. That way everyone in America has a voice.

Our founding fathers originally had it set up that land owners had the vote. That was changed since then. I do like your county idea, since many of our states are quite varied demographically within individual states, it would be more accurate for votes to count nationally or would some states just simply divide and multiply their county seats to get more votes?

We need a way for those running for office to represent EVERYONE, not just major coastal cities.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Kick the EC system into the curb where it belongs - you do not send your electorates per horse at Washington D.C. anymore.

One person, one vote. Count them like every other civilized country.


The EC system opens the doors to gerrymandering and a multitude of other undemocratic ways to mangle the votings.

One person one vote .. until they vote Brexit and you don't like it then it's let's have a do-over.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jrod

Change it to a system where EC votes are done by counties. That way everyone in America has a voice.

That would be awesome. I'll take their "Removal of Electoral College" and raise it with your suggestion.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Kick the EC system into the curb where it belongs - you do not send your electorates per horse at Washington D.C. anymore.

One person, one vote. Count them like every other civilized country.


The EC system opens the doors to gerrymandering and a multitude of other undemocratic ways to mangle the votings.

That doesn't make sense. Sorry.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jrod

Change it to a system where EC votes are done by counties. That way everyone in America has a voice.

That would be awesome. I'll take their "Removal of Electoral College" and raise it with your suggestion.

The idea you can win 10-15% of the counties and win the election is crazy to me.