An idea to reform the electoral college.

originally posted by: Assassin82


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.

The electoral vote was obviously put in to stop majority rule one state or group of states over others - level the playing field as it were.

Accomplishing what you are proposing without complicated formulas might entail,

Institute the electoral method at state level so for example areas/regions like NYC could not monopolize control of an entire state and override voting in rest of state. Nor could areas/regions like LA basin do same in states like California.

This would have the effect of removing radicalism at state levels and go long ways centering politics in entire nation.

originally posted by: Edumakated


Really. You got people serving 20 years and don't have sh*t to show for it (beyond a fatter bank account).

I say 3 for congress since that is six years total. 2 for Senate since that is 12 years. If you can't make an impact in that amount of time in either position, you are inept and need to go.

I said even as in anything would be better as to what we have...I would take 20 years over 50...

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: olaru12
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.

Even within the state, the voting is usually done by districts. We have representative democracy, not mob rule.

Voting is freedom of expression by individuals, that's not mob rule. One man, One vote.

Ancient Greece learned hard way that system just leads to freedom of expression on rewards received until they ran out of OPM.

originally posted by: toms54


Term limits for the Supreme court and other federal judges. If they're good, we can reappoint them.

I disagree with SE and most likely higher level judge positions.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: narrator


The simplest solution is: One man, one vote. Take away all of that extraneous math (that would have to be recalculated every single year) and just make it basic addition/subtraction. How many people voted for candidate A? B? C? Whichever one got the most votes is President.
That is so incredibly simple. And if you are TRULY objective about it, you have to agree that it'd be the simplest thing to implement.

I really think schools should do more civics lessons...

In a democracy it is as you say one person, one vote, but we are not a democracy. Being a republic of 50 United States we are more like the EU and what you suggest would be like taking the EU and make it just one country called Europe, and that doesn't sound to be a good idea anyone would want. When you think about it, Every election is state level except for the President. Every state votes their reps in the one person one vote model, so at the state level it is a democracy.

In the US, each state is EQUAL and so they EACH gets 2 senators in that equality. The house is based on population and is restrictive in numbers because if we had 1000 reps then the power of the senate vote would be meaningless. We need to remember the equality of the states and not suggest that CA is better than 10 other states combined because of population. States are equal... I can't say this enough...

Since EVERY election is accomplished at the state level and we have just the one at the federal level for President the one person one vote just doesn't make sense since CA could gain too much power over the other equal states.

Just like the America the people of Europe might vote in their respective country but the President of the European Commission is elected by the Parliament and not the popular vote, otherwise a few countries could gain absolute control of 28 countries.

I never said we are. This entire thread is a hypothetical. I was simply adding in my hypothetical. Therefore, "but we aren't a democracy" isn't an argument against anything I said. I know we aren't. All I said was, one man one vote is a simpler form of voting than what we currently have, and what has been proposed in the OP.

To extend your argument, the entire OP should be discarded because the country doesn't currently vote based on weighted state GDPs and voter fraud records.

ETA: I don't know where you live, but I had civics class growing up, and the schools I've worked in as an adult all still teach civics in some form.
Civics doesn't teach us to toe the line and never question authority. It teaches us that great things happen when we question the status quo and realize that we can be better than we currently are.

originally posted by: narrator


I never said we are. This entire thread is a hypothetical. I was simply adding in my hypothetical. Therefore, "but we aren't a democracy" isn't an argument against anything I said. I know we aren't. All I said was, one man one vote is a simpler form of voting than what we currently have, and what has been proposed in the OP.

To extend your argument, the entire OP should be discarded because the country doesn't currently vote based on weighted state GDPs and voter fraud records.

I was more commenting on the current attitude of some Americans. We are already using the popular vote in all elections but the President, so I do not understand your point then. Ok simper... seems like a waste of words in a way. We could have a nation wide lottery where one person is randomly picked to vote for all if you want simple.

An idea to reform the electoral college.

Why ?
Why did I ask ? (I already know the answer)
Does the Electoral College work as designed ? Yes.
Does the Electoral College need an uplift ? No

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: narrator


The simplest solution is: One man, one vote. Take away all of that extraneous math (that would have to be recalculated every single year) and just make it basic addition/subtraction. How many people voted for candidate A? B? C? Whichever one got the most votes is President.
That is so incredibly simple. And if you are TRULY objective about it, you have to agree that it'd be the simplest thing to implement.

I really think schools should do more civics lessons...

In a democracy it is as you say one person, one vote, but we are not a democracy. Being a republic of 50 United States we are more like the EU and what you suggest would be like taking the EU and make it just one country called Europe, and that doesn't sound to be a good idea anyone would want. When you think about it, Every election is state level except for the President. Every state votes their reps in the one person one vote model, so at the state level it is a democracy.

In the US, each state is EQUAL and so they EACH gets 2 senators in that equality. The house is based on population and is restrictive in numbers because if we had 1000 reps then the power of the senate vote would be meaningless. We need to remember the equality of the states and not suggest that CA is better than 10 other states combined because of population. States are equal... I can't say this enough...

Since EVERY election is accomplished at the state level and we have just the one at the federal level for President the one person one vote just doesn't make sense since CA could gain too much power over the other equal states.

Just like the America the people of Europe might vote in their respective country but the President of the European Commission is elected by the Parliament and not the popular vote, otherwise a few countries could gain absolute control of 28 countries.

This gets a star from me. I didnt want to say outright i would be comfortable with 3 ec votes per state to elect president and vp, but sadly it is true in the current situation. The architects of our constitution never anticipated an imbalance of federal subsidies and redistribution of wealth based on population density, and how this could affect the direction of the country. As it stands, the most populous states have sn advantage to dictate the direction of the country regardless of the states individual prosperity. So long as federal money is not distributed evenly among the states, i wouldnt disagree with each state getting an ec vote for each senator, and 1 electoral vote from the electoral college.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: drewlander

I think it would be useful to know how many citizens there are. Food stamps should be allocated on the basis of need regardless of citizenship. Federal representation should be based upon the number of voters or citizens. When you just mix them all into one group you're looking at slaves are 3/5 of a person territory.

I entirely agree. We have a social responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves, and to be clear i am far from a socialist. Somehow a factor of accountability needs to be worked into the equation.