U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-21-2017, 11:16 PM
 
9,804 posts, read 10,042,815 times
Reputation: 5248

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jas75 View Post
This would reduce the incentive to campaign in the state, if there is little difference in their electoral vote count regardless of the candidate's performance, while other states have winner-take-all systems. Not likely that a key swing state would want to relinquish being at the center of attention during a presidential campaign. With smaller states, an even larger change in the vote percentage would be required for just one more electoral vote, so they are even less incentivized to adopt such a system.
Well you are giving the primary reason that states quickly adopted the winner take all system of allocation.

No matter how you cut it states are not going to readily adopt a new system. Obviously Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016 with a popular vote,and Romney would have run in 2012 with a 1 electoral college vote per congressional district, and 2 votes per state. It doesn't matter if you find millions of people who think either system is more fair than the current one.

Which is why I favor a more limited compact among the top four states in population (NY, CA, TX, FL) where they adopt the 1 electoral college vote per CD and 2 votes per state. It is not clear before the election which candidate would be helped. It would galvanize the poor turnout in NY,CA, TX where people feel that their vote doesn't matter unless they are in the mainstream. Your compact must include a batleground state.

Maybe if those four states can lead by example, the smaller states will adopt similar rules.

Ross Perot had 19% of popular vote in 1992, but he didn't win a single congressional district.
43.01% Bill Clinton
37.45% George H. W. Bush
18.91% Ross Perot

But people who favor the vote going to whoever has the plurality, need to ask themselves a serious question. Think of a hypothetical election like the one below. Do you really Candidate A to be POTUS?
27% Candidate A
26% Candidate B
24% Candidate C
23% Candidate D
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2017, 12:03 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,832 posts, read 41,883,302 times
Reputation: 43206
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
Well you are giving the primary reason that states quickly adopted the winner take all system of allocation.

No matter how you cut it states are not going to readily adopt a new system. Obviously Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016 with a popular vote,and Romney would have run in 2012 with a 1 electoral college vote per congressional district, and 2 votes per state. It doesn't matter if you find millions of people who think either system is more fair than the current one.

Which is why I favor a more limited compact among the top four states in population (NY, CA, TX, FL) where they adopt the 1 electoral college vote per CD and 2 votes per state. It is not clear before the election which candidate would be helped. It would galvanize the poor turnout in NY,CA, TX where people feel that their vote doesn't matter unless they are in the mainstream. Your compact must include a batleground state.

Maybe if those four states can lead by example, the smaller states will adopt similar rules.

Ross Perot had 19% of popular vote in 1992, but he didn't win a single congressional district.
43.01% Bill Clinton
37.45% George H. W. Bush
18.91% Ross Perot

But people who favor the vote going to whoever has the plurality, need to ask themselves a serious question. Think of a hypothetical election like the one below. Do you really Candidate A to be POTUS?
27% Candidate A
26% Candidate B
24% Candidate C
23% Candidate D
For your last example the President's name would be Abraham Lincoln. Actually he got under 40% of the popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 02:00 PM
 
9,804 posts, read 10,042,815 times
Reputation: 5248
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
For your last example the President's name would be Abraham Lincoln. Actually he got under 40% of the popular vote.
39.8% Abraham Lincoln: Republican 180 (155 needed to win)
29.5% Stephen A. Douglas:Northern Democratic 12
18.1% John C. Breckinridge: Southern Democratic 72
12.6% John Bell:Constitutional Union 39

Yes. Partly because he was not on the ballot of 9 southern states, and South Carolina had no popular vote. NJ was the only state to split electoral college vote. Every other state was Winner Take All (33 state in total).

Abraham Lincoln would have won the election with EC votes from 14 states, but he won 17 states plus part of NJ.
  1. 75.8% Vermont 5 5
  2. 63.4% Minnesota 4 9
  3. 62.9% Massachusetts 13 22
  4. 62.2% Maine 8 30
  5. 61.4% Rhode Island 4 34
  6. 58.1% Connecticut 6 40
  7. 57.2% Michigan 6 46
  8. 56.9% New Hampshire 5 51
  9. 56.6% Wisconsin 5 56
  10. 56.3% Pennsylvania 27 83
  11. 54.6% Iowa 4 87
  12. 53.7% New York 35 122
  13. 52.3% Ohio 23 145
  14. 51.1% Indiana 13 158
50.7% Illinois 11
48.1% New Jersey 4/7
36.1% Oregon 3
32.3% California 4

Yes, Abe Lincoln won the plurality of the popular vote, but he was elected because he won the majority of Electoral College Vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2017, 04:59 PM
 
8,059 posts, read 4,395,330 times
Reputation: 3063
Compromise was the key to forming These United States. In more ways than th EC. Failure to compromise is slowly, but surely dissolving These United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
The fact that presidents came from 18 different states is a partial testament of the effectiveness of the decision not to go with "one man one vote" elections.

But the main point was that the 13 colonies would never have agreed to unify into one country without this power sharing agreement. The war of independence was fought by a coalition of militias.

It seems just as likely that the country would break up if a constitutional amendment was passed to change this power structure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top