Changing the Electoral College

a reply to: Bluntone22

While Trump would lose votes there, he would gain a lot in every state that voted blue. Splitting California and New York netted 29 EC votes, that is the same number of votes Florida has.

Illinois, Washington, Colarado, Virginia Massachusetts, ect..all would give Trump a significant number of votes.(about 30 from those 4)

originally posted by: seeker1963

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.

He doesn't like the way Brexit turned out, so those who supported Brexit, and voted in favor of it, are wrong in his opinion.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.

I agree. I think each county should get one electoral vote. First to 1,571 wins.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: seeker1963

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.

He doesn't like the way Brexit turned out, so those who supported Brexit, and voted in favor of it, are wrong in his opinion.

I will use his system. One person one vote, and if I don't like the outcome we keep re-voting until I do.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.

I agree. I think each county should get one electoral vote. First to 1,571 wins.

I think a system where half the EC is done by a strict even split by counties, and the other half is awarded based on population (so like the house and senate). So big population counties will have more EC votes, but not control the state.

a reply to: jrod

How is that any different than just going by the popular vote?

originally posted by: jrod
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%.

Wow - great idea!!



Seriously.

What did you put in your Wheaties this morning?

Don't you know you're not allowed to make sense right before the weekend?!?

Someone call the ATS secret police...or a real dialogue may break out here at any moment.

[silly grin]

a reply to: Bluntone22

California still would get 1 EC vote per about 680,000 people, while Wyoming would still get 1 EC vote per about 190,000 people. It still gives more weight to rural states.

It would prevent huge discrepancies between the popular vote and electoral college which in theory could happen.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: jrod

How is that any different than just going by the popular vote?

Ummm...I think you missed his entire point.

His system keeps the Electoral College in place but it adds the ability to fairly represent what the percentage (%) of voters chose while at the *same time* not giving too much power to the voters in few states like CA, NY in the current winner take all EC system.

Or - maybe I missed your entire point?...LOL!

It's been a long day already and it's not even noon here yet.

Enjoy your weekend.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.

You do understand that there was no second referendum? Only Bojo being a clown...

originally posted by: LSU2018

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.

Explain. What does not make sense?

Electoral delegates are based on population. So is the house of representatives .

If they’re going to insist on tearing up the constitution. Why not abolish the electoral college and limit states to three house representatives ?

I’m shooting from the hip with this but it sounds like that would even everything up .

a reply to: jrod

This would absolutely make many important swing states unimportant and kill any chances of a Republican being elected.

If you counted all votes, just vote for vote, and applied them as that, percentage based, there would only be about 30% of Republican votes. Democrats hold over 40% of all legal age voters, and independents just a touch more than Republicans.

Out of the three groups, legal age voters, Republicans are a minority if you counted heads.

EC is the ONLY way to balance things out and make it a close fight every time. Without EC there would be no control and it would be a landslide every damn time.

I am so against this.

a reply to: ganjoa

What's really funny is that California changing to national popular vote did them less than zero good. Before there was no chance that a republican could get California electoral votes, now it IS possible if the national popular vote is for them.

Their idiocy knows no bounds.

Jaden

Nothing but bad ideas including mine .

Let’s just keep it .

originally posted by: jrod
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%.

Your proposal for changes to the Electoral College system is sound, I dislike your reasoning for the need for change and question it's consistency as the Electoral College system is designed specifically to give more weight (person for person) to rural areas.

The whole premise that rural voters 'should' have more say then 'urban' votes is dismetrically opposed to the democratic ideal of 'one person, one vote'.

The whole institution should be scrapped but your proposal for 'reform' is a fair one that would lead to greater voter representation in the existing system.

Maine and Nebraska have adapted a different approach. Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote.

www.270towin.com...

But, as has been pointed out, the SCOTUS has determined that states have no recourse should an elector go rogue. They can vote however they please.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.

You do understand that there was no second referendum? Only Bojo being a clown...

So remain followers have not been calling for another referendum?

a reply to: Oraculi

Might as well just have Florida vote and no other state since whoever wins Florida ends up winning the election.

I'm not going to dig for the link, but somewhere someone did the math and Hillary would have 270 EC votes in 2016, barely winning the election.

I do think more Republicans in California and New York would vote in the presidential election, if the EC votes were split proportionally since their vote would actually count. Had this been in place and assuming more Republicans would have voted in 2016, it is reasonable to say Trump might have still won.

a reply to: jrod

I have said for years the EC should be broken down to the counties. There are a little over 3000 counties in the US. If it broke down by counties it would end the terrine of large cities caring a whole state. This would force the the politicking down to the counties which in my opinion would be fairer.