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.
If you want to live under mob rule go somewhere like Venezuela. It has nothing to do with considering some people more human than others. However if you don't own property what make you think you have the right to dictate what I pay in taxes on that property? Same for people on welfare. What right do they have to vote more money out of my pocket so they can get more money in theirs? I work hard for my money while these slobs that game the system do little to nothing.
I'm pretty sure I pay more taxes than you, but I'm not here whining about it like a little snowflake who needs a hug because the big bad welfare queen is taking advantage of him, wah.
Wrong. Snowflakes are Leftie idiots that need safe spaces because their get feelings hurt. Which I'm sure the results of this election did (with all of the suicide threats, protests, electoral college complaints, etc). Oh by the way, I'm black, don't watch right wing media, and I'm still in my 20s. Just gonna put that out there in advance.
So you don't think that losing an election by 600K votes and still getting the office deserves even a minor question raised about the system that creates that scenario?
Take the number of electoral votes a state gets, and then divide it out according to the popular vote within that state. No more winner-take-all. The proportion of the state's divvied up electoral votes will actually reflect what the populace voted for. In California, instead of 55 electoral votes going to Clinton, only 36 might go to Clinton, while 19 go to Trump.
I think this would actually increase campaigning in rural areas, because solid red states are likely to be relatively overlooked because it's taken for granted that their electoral votes will all go to the GOP. Same thing with blue states. Their Republicans are always overlooked.
You get the benefit of each state being key players, as well as every voter in each of those states finally being able to really make a difference outside of swing states.
If you want to keep the 270 to win, you'd have to drop any candidate who gets less than say 5 or 10% to avoid a run off or house scenario too often
So in either case in California, Stein and Johnson are out
So recalculate percentages:
65.3% to Clinton:36 evs
34.6% to Trump:19 evs
So that way, third party candidates with actual support, like over 5 or 10%, whatever number you want to use, actually have significant effect..they could send the election to the house. This would have happened with Perot.
Johnson got more than 5% in 11 states and over 10% in none.
I believe there is a "majority" rule in the Constitution, which reflects the 270 to win, so you'd have to go with a minimum % of votes to get electors.
It isn't a mess. It's much better than the current system and if I can figure it out on a spreadsheet in 5 minutes, it's not complicated.
There is really nothing wrong with the system we currently have. There are way more problems with all of the proposals of which either side is going to make sure they have the advantage. Besides if you go with a more popular vote oriented system you would need to eliminate the Senate to be consistent.
I'm pretty sure I pay more taxes than you, but I'm not here whining about it like a little snowflake who needs a hug because the big bad welfare queen is taking advantage of him, wah.
LOL! If only you ACTUALLY knew me you would make such an ignorant statement.
Take the number of electoral votes a state gets, and then divide it out according to the popular vote within that state. No more winner-take-all.
I think this would actually increase campaigning in rural areas, because solid red states are likely to be relatively overlooked because it's taken for granted that their electoral votes will all go to the GOP. Same thing with blue states.
You get the benefit of each state being key players, as well as every voter in each of those states finally being able to really make a difference outside of swing states.
That's the MIT plan, in a nutshell.
The only issue you have to deal with is the 270 to win, because a few electoral votes here and there to a third party candidate, like Gary Johnson would make getting to 270 impossible.
So, you'd have to put a minimum 10% cut off to get any votes.
Perot would have been a major force in 1992 because he pulled over 20% in many states.
So you don't think that losing an election by 600K votes and still getting the office deserves even a minor question raised about the system that creates that scenario?
The President-elect sure raised a bunch of questions about the fairness of of the Electoral College back in 2012, and was claiming the election was "rigged" until he won.
So you don't think that losing an election by 600K votes and still getting the office deserves even a minor question raised about the system that creates that scenario?
I'm sure if it was the other way around you guys would be demanding it remain intact.
Take the number of electoral votes a state gets, and then divide it out according to the popular vote within that state. No more winner-take-all. The proportion of the state's divvied up electoral votes will actually reflect what the populace voted for. In California, instead of 55 electoral votes going to Clinton, only 36 might go to Clinton, while 19 go to Trump.
I think this would actually increase campaigning in rural areas, because solid red states are likely to be relatively overlooked because it's taken for granted that their electoral votes will all go to the GOP. Same thing with blue states. Their Republicans are always overlooked.
You get the benefit of each state being key players, as well as every voter in each of those states finally being able to really make a difference outside of swing states.
You might as well have a national popular vote. They would campaign only in areas that would yield the most votes.
If you want to live under mob rule go somewhere like Venezuela. It has nothing to do with considering some people more human than others. However if you don't own property what make you think you have the right to dictate what I pay in taxes on that property? Same for people on welfare. What right do they have to vote more money out of my pocket so they can get more money in theirs? I work hard for my money while these slobs that game the system do little to nothing.
Taxes and spending are not the only things determined by an election.
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.