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.
Electoral College does not favor Republicans unless it is a moderate/establishment candidate. Remember that W was supposed to be a "Compassionate Conservative."
That's true BUT, on the flip side, Republicans have essentially anchored themselves as the dominant party at the state level for the next 15-20 years, and the House through 2020 (I'm assuming a Clinton presidency, so I really doubt things flip in 2018, and they definitely aren't flipping this year). We drop the Electoral College, in exchange, the right side of the aisle agrees to a new non-partisan commission that arbitrates fairness in redistricting. Now, obviously courts have called out significant foul play, but there is a ton of unfair redistricting that Republicans have done to anchor themselves simply because it isn't obvious ENOUGH to get it overturned in court.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz really dropped the ball at state level races, and that's why there's like 32 GOP governors, 67/99 state legislative chambers have majority Republicans, etc. etc.
One person, one vote. The President should be elected by a simple majority of the nationwide popular vote total. No more swing state, get to 270 BS. The Electoral College is an outdated relic that should be eliminated immediately.
I disagree with this.
Elections aren't just about what happens on Election Day. Elections are really extended conversations between the people and those running for office. And it's a genuine conversation. Those who are running get to share their ideas and proposals, and the people get to tell the candidates what they think of those ideas, what they want their priorities to be, what they think is wrong and what they think is right about our government. The electoral college provides a miniscule incentive for the candidates to conduct part of that conversation in more rural states which might otherwise be overlooked.
There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. The issue that most people have is with the winner-take-all system that the majority of states use to select electors. That system is not controlled by the federal government, it's determined by state-level legislation, and can be changed by the states. All it takes is for sufficient numbers of people on the state level to change the laws. No Constitutional Amendments needed.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,541,241 times
Reputation: 2038
Quote:
Originally Posted by phxone
One person, one vote. The President should be elected by a simple majority of the nationwide popular vote total. No more swing state, get to 270 BS. The Electoral College is an outdated relic that should be eliminated immediately.
I wish this was realistic, but, then only 10 states, the most populous, even less probably when you consider that places, like CA, NY, and GA are solidly one party states, would really matter in another way, while small states, like WY, DE and VT would be a complete after thought.
If there's enough ground swell, from the ground up, Congress could take it out.
Wouldn't be surprised if one of them won, thanks to something fixed or won the popular, but lost the electoral.
The electoral system needs to go.
Actually, no. That's not how it works. Congress would have to amend the Constitution and the amendment would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Congress can't just "take it out."
Elections aren't just about what happens on Election Day. Elections are really extended conversations between the people and those running for office. And it's a genuine conversation. Those who are running get to share their ideas and proposals, and the people get to tell the candidates what they think of those ideas, what they want their priorities to be, what they think is wrong and what they think is right about our government. The electoral college provides a miniscule incentive for the candidates to conduct part of that conversation in more rural states which might otherwise be overlooked.
There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. The issue that most people have is with the winner-take-all system that the majority of states use to select electors. That system is not controlled by the federal government, it's determined by state-level legislation, and can be changed by the states. All it takes is for sufficient numbers of people on the state level to change the laws. No Constitutional Amendments needed.
While we disagree on the value of the Electoral College system, we agree that changes will need to be done at the state level.
I support the project that would change state laws to require electors to vote for the candidate that received the most nationwide popular votes.
Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to presidential electors associated with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the winner of the national popular vote would always win the presidency by always securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.
Or at least stop it from being the be all, end all, of National Elections.
I just think frankly, the country needs a system, where it's best 2 out of 3. 1/3rd electoral college, 1/3 popular vote, 1/3 Nationwide Seats (including local elections, that would encourage more local voting and it's something similar to the way Canadians do it). The party that wins two out of three or all there, wins the White House. It's not the 18th century anymore. Thanks to the way it is now, maybe votes only REALLY matter in what, 10-12 states at the most?
You can make the # of elections in a state won, based on a winning percentage. Since, you can't go by straight # since, CA may have 10000 plus elections on Election Day, while Wyoming may have something like 200?
Again, this would make local elections more relevant and make every vote really count. That monkier (every vote counts), is a complete farce now in this country like anyone with a brain knows.
Plus, it would make it harder to fix an election.
Thoughts?
At least for 50 to 100 years from now, a 3 way tie is something that won't be an issue thanks to the R and D stranglehold.
This idea is silly -- and devious. The only acceptable alternative to the Electoral College is direct election of the POTUS by popular vote. Your plan is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court dictate of one person, one vote, and give more power to states with smaller populations.
was that the number of votes a state has in the electoral college is based upon population within that state, illegal or otherwise. So may states with large undocumented "immigrants" populations are receiving a disproportionate large number of votes.
While we disagree on the value of the Electoral College system, we agree that changes will need to be done at the state level.
I support the project that would change state laws to require electors to vote for the candidate that received the most nationwide popular votes.
Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to presidential electors associated with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the winner of the national popular vote would always win the presidency by always securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.
I do not support the popular vote project. For two reasons, first, I am not in favor of backdoor legislation to change the Constitution. And the entire point of the National Popular Vote movement is to render the electoral college moot.
And secondly, I don't favor the national popular vote. While I support wholeheartedly the ideal that the person who wins should be the person who received the most votes, I think that fundamentally people do not understand that elections are a process, they aren't just about who wins at the end of the day. The point of the process is so that the people we elect actually engage with the people doing the voting. And the national popular vote removes any incentive for the candidates to engage with people outside the major metropolises.
I would further point out that the national popular vote is a disaster for the Republican Party, as the urban areas in this country are solidly blue, and demographically outnumber the rest of the nation. While I am liberal, I think that conservative voices play an important role in our system of government, and effectively silencing those voices is a disservice to the ideal of a democracy.
I do not support the popular vote project. For two reasons, first, I am not in favor of backdoor legislation to change the Constitution. And the entire point of the National Popular Vote movement is to render the electoral college moot.
And secondly, I don't favor the national popular vote. While I support wholeheartedly the ideal that the person who wins should be the person who received the most votes, I think that fundamentally people do not understand that elections are a process, they aren't just about who wins at the end of the day. The point of the process is so that the people we elect actually engage with the people doing the voting. And the national popular vote removes any incentive for the candidates to engage with people outside the major metropolises.
I would further point out that the national popular vote is a disaster for the Republican Party, as the urban areas in this country are solidly blue, and demographically outnumber the rest of the nation. While I am liberal, I think that conservative voices play an important role in our system of government, and effectively silencing those voices is a disservice to the ideal of a democracy.
I fail to see how giving the vote of each person the same value in deciding who the President will be equates to silencing voices. What you are arguing for is the status quo in which the vote of a citizen in a less populated state is weighted more heavily than someone that lives in CA or NY.
The Electoral College is an inherently unfair and biased system that intentionally disenfranchises millions of voters. A Republican voter in New York should count no more and no less than a Republican voter that lives in Oklahoma. With the Electoral College in place, a voter that runs counter to the prevailing political winds in any state essentially does not have a voice in who the President of our country will be. A vote for the Democratic Party candidate in a state like Kansas is worthless just like a vote for the Republican in New York. The Electoral College actually discourages people from voting and is a horrible system. I also believe that the Electoral College is the poison at the root of our political dysfunction. It allows both major parties to play to the partisan extremists and target just a few voters in a handful of states instead of supporting polices that would appeal to the majority of US citizens. Our President is selected every year by a very small group of voters in a state like Florida or Ohio, the rest of the states and their voters don't matter at all in the eventual outcome of the 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.
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.
One fact I was unaware of ...
