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.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is pretty irrelevant on this issue when it comes to reality.
Reality: You need to find 39 states willing to vote to amend the Constitution. 21 of our 50 states gain a significant advantage in presidential elections from the EC setup. So you just need 9 of those 21 states to willingly and intentionally vote to make themselves less important and more likely to be even more ignored in favor of more populous states.
Feel free to tell me how your going to sell that one.
Didn't I just say the same thing 2 posts ago?
The best system I've seen was proposed by some MIT guys: proportional electors based on % of popular votes in each state.
So California, instead of 55 to Clinton would be:
34 to Clinton
18 to Trump
2 to Johnson
1 to Stein
Texas would be:
16 to Clinton
20 to Trump
2 to Johnson
none to Stein (less than 1% gets jack)
You avoid the nationwide recount, the small states still have an increased say because of the extra 2 electoral votes for Senators, and 3rd party candidates actually have some input.
I'm not sure how the election would have turned on this system, haven't done all the math, but all states could adopt this and it wouldn't require an amendment because it doesn't abolish the EC. Some states are already doing proportional votes so it would work. Of course, no large state would agree to do this unless all the other states did it at the same time.
Update:
I did the math (dumped the election info from wiki into a spreadsheet)
It would have to be a significant popular vote victory for anyone to win 270 under this system. You'd have to either lower what was needed to win, make it simple plurality, or have a run off.
You'd have Clinton at 256 and Trump at 252, Johnson at 18, Stein at 6
I think it's a better approach and it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California would at least feel like part of the process.
And to those rural/GOP voters who oppose this for obvious reasons: what happens when a candidate loses an election by say, millions of votes. Do the people who voted for that candidate not have a reason to feel like they're being screwed?
The best system I've seen was proposed by some MIT guys: proportional electors based on % of popular votes in each state.
So California, instead of 55 to Clinton would be:
34 to Clinton
18 to Trump
2 to Johnson
1 to Stein
Texas would be:
16 to Clinton
20 to Trump
2 to Johnson
none to Stein (less than 1% gets jack)
You avoid the nationwide recount, the small states still have an increased say because of the extra 2 electoral votes for Senators, and 3rd party candidates actually have some input.
I'm not sure how the election would have turned on this system, haven't done all the math, but all states could adopt this and it wouldn't require an amendment because it doesn't abolish the EC. Some states are already doing proportional votes so it would work. Of course, no large state would agree to do this unless all the other states did it at the same time.
And every state can choose to start doing that anytime they want. No federal anything necessary. States choose how their electors are chosen. If Delaware wanted to arrange a poker game to determine who gets theirs, they could do that too.
What you can't do is force all 50 states to do it the same way. With a mixed bag of winner-take-all and proportional, it'd be messy. Still, I'd say your better off getting the ball rolling on that. If New York, California and Texas started it, other states might follow suit. Trick is, they might not follow suit.
Each state has 2 senators. That means that California has one senator for every 18.5 million people, and Wyoming has 2 senators for every 300 thousand. It means that in the senate Wyoming has as much say as California. The electoral college give small states like Wyoming a foot in the race it would otherwise not have. People in Wyoming would not matter. Now that you lost and lost big you want to change the rules. This is the whiner generation.
Please. Please! I beg of you: stop with the whole "snowflake" thing. In a matter of weeks, it has become one of the most overused words in the conservative vernacular. We get the intended metaphor, but it's had its time. You sound like every other conservative who posts on here.
On the bright side, at least you didn't use the phrase "false narrative" in your thread title.
Pretty meaningless map that shows square areas of land.
It's people that vote, not land.
You need a map that represents numbers of people voting, not the area of land.
Most of those western states combined populations fits into the size of New Jersey.
This should help explain the problem, but I doubt it will make much of a difference to those who need said explanation.
In any case, good illustration, thanks for sharing it.
Someone living in a rented apartment in NYC doesn't have near as much at stake than a 1000 acre ranch owner in Wyoming. That's the beauty of the EC system. It really allows people who have a bigger stake to have more say. I'm of the opinion that people who are on welfare and do not have some sort of investment in this country shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's the same reason that people who are at risk of blackmail shouldn't hold sensitive positions. I don't expect to have a say in what Apple does if I'm not invested with them. (Yes, I know I'm just a racist bigot who lives in the south and clings to my religion and guns. - end sarcasm.)
How do you figure this? Does the apartment dweller value his or her life less, or care less about the things that affect it? Would it make a difference if the apartment dweller lived in a penthouse overlooking in Central Park, and not, as you seem to imply, in public housing?
That's a pretty messed up view you have there. *shakes head*
The best system I've seen was proposed by some MIT guys: proportional electors based on % of popular votes in each state.
So California, instead of 55 to Clinton would be:
34 to Clinton
18 to Trump
2 to Johnson
1 to Stein
Texas would be:
16 to Clinton
20 to Trump
2 to Johnson
none to Stein (less than 1% gets jack)
You avoid the nationwide recount, the small states still have an increased say because of the extra 2 electoral votes for Senators, and 3rd party candidates actually have some input.
I'm not sure how the election would have turned on this system, haven't done all the math, but all states could adopt this and it wouldn't require an amendment because it doesn't abolish the EC. Some states are already doing proportional votes so it would work. Of course, no large state would agree to do this unless all the other states did it at the same time.
Update:
I did the math (dumped the election info from wiki into a spreadsheet)
It would have to be a significant popular vote victory for anyone to win 270 under this system. You'd have to either lower what was needed to win, make it simple plurality, or have a run off.
You'd have Clinton at 256 and Trump at 252, Johnson at 18, Stein at 6
I think it's a better approach and it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California would at least feel like part of the process.
And to those rural/GOP voters who oppose this for obvious reasons: what happens when a candidate loses an election by say, millions of votes. Do the people who voted for that candidate not have a reason to feel like they're being screwed?
It would have been Clinton 260 and Trump 253. This method is essentially a popular vote in disguise. Then you are most definitely at the mercy of the House. I believe this would cause more problems than it's worth. Too many elections would be thrown to the House for a vote.
It would have been Clinton 260 and Trump 253. This method is essentially a popular vote in disguise. Then you are most definitely at the mercy of the House. I believe this would cause more problems than it's worth. Too many elections would be thrown to the House for a vote.
It's a popular vote with the small states being disproportionately represented with the 2 Senators still counting.
Like I said, you'd have to drop the 270 to win part or it would end up in the house, or make the state cut off 10% or something in order to get any electors.
Please. Please! I beg of you: stop with the whole "snowflake" thing. In a matter of weeks, it has become one of the most overused words in the conservative vernacular. We get the intended metaphor, but it's had its time. You sound like every other conservative who posts on here.
On the bright side, at least you didn't use the phrase "false narrative" in your thread title.
It's certainly the most over-used one on this forum. The one I got really tired of during the campaign coverage on television was "baked in."
It's certainly the most over-used one on this forum. The one I got really tired of during the campaign coverage on television was "baked in."
I'd have to say "safe space" is up there with "snowflake" of course it's all parroted by the same fools.
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.
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.
