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.
The EC has actually had many increases in the last Century, we haven't updated the total number since 1960. The population in the aggregate has grown quite a bit since then. It might be a worthy and cheaper consideration than full blown abolition.
Yes, but it's based on how many US House representatives there are for 50 states combined plus the two senate seats. Next election some states are losing electoral votes while others will be gaining votes.
They also don't realize that if the Electoral College didn't exist, Hillary Clinton still probably wouldn't be president.
In a Democracy, the majority rules. While Clinton has more votes, she doesn't have a majority. Which throws the decision to the House or Representatives. I think there's about a 60% chance that they would give it to Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Contradicting yourself much?
.
No.
A majority of the votes in any election would be more than 50%. Clinton currently has 48%, and the counting left to do won't change that by much.
So if there were no Electoral College and all the other election rules remained the same, the House of Representatives would choose the president from the top three vote-getters, Clinton, Trump, and Johnson. With each state getting one vote, I think Trump is probably still president.
How so? You can increase the representatives without increasing the Senate. It would be some reform, but it is not unprecedented.
You kind of missed what I meant. The EC is joined at the hip Constitutionally to the number of House seats in each state plus the Senate. Back out the Senate numbers you now have 435 Representatives, each representing roughly 700K residents in each District.
Are you suggesting we award larger population states more EC votes/Representatives making the proportional number smaller for each one while keeping the old number of 700K staff for the others?
Yes, but it's based on how many US House representatives there are for 50 states combined plus the two senate seats. Next election some states are losing electoral votes while others will be gaining votes.
We aren't disagreeing im simply saying that we need to add more representatives in the aggregate to more equitably apportion the votes. Not a direct democracy, just an update to a system that hasn't had an update in the aggregate in 60 years.
100% is set as the average, some states have 3x the representation others do on a per voter basis. Allocating more representatives on a smaller basis of population would even it out a bit better.
You kind of missed what I meant. The EC is joined at the hip Constitutionally to the number of House seats in each state plus the Senate. Back out the Senate numbers you now have 435 Representatives, each representing roughly 700K residents in each District.
Are you suggesting we award larger population states more EC votes/Representatives making the proportional number smaller for each one while keeping the old number of 700K staff for the others?
See post above, In saying one rep for 500k voters doesn't make sense one rep per 300k or the like would make it more even. The main reason some states are over represented is because they have 3 total votes and less than 500k people.
We've made this exact adjustment many times in the past.
See post above, In saying one rep for 500k voters doesn't make sense one rep per 300k or the like would make it more even.
We've made this exact adjustment many times in the past.
Ok. But it still wouldn't change this year's EC vote, the aggregate total needed to win would be more.
Maybe we need a larger House. I don't think so and would have to be convinced. In Maryland, getting more Representatives would mean the Democrats would lose seats and they won't tolerate that.
Ok. But it still wouldn't change this year's EC vote, the aggregate total needed to win would be more.
Maybe we need a larger House. I don't think so and would have to be convinced. In Maryland, getting more Representatives would mean the Democrats would lose seats and they won't tolerate that.
I agree, no need to look back, but moving forward an update would be more fair.
I don't care if it favors Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. It's the only "fair" system. Imagine what this would do for voter turnout. People would actually care to vote in solid red / blue states. no more of this focus on swing states nonsense.
I really don't know where some of you guys get "more people would vote if their vote really counted". It does "count" in state and local elections and turnout rarely cracks 50%. Which is actually only 25% since half the people eligible to vote aren't even registered to do so.
And that's why the system is broken. The man who came in second gets to be president.
.
That's called a plurality. And when there is a plurality there is a run off. She would lose that too.
Of course only those who were 100% wrong in 1000s of posts about this election, are worried about the popular vote.
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.
