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.
I think what some fail to realize is that this isn't just "change the way we elect the President so our guy (or gal) wins next time." It is why don't we elect the President by popular vote in general, regardless of who would win. We elect every other official in this country by way of popular vote. There's also much stronger arguments than that, but that is the simplest to relate to.
However, what concerns me the most is your comment that I have since bolded. The OP's reasoning is based on counties. Counties are arbitrary. Some counties have less than 1000 people. Some populous states have as many counties as less populous states; earlier I pointed out NY (20M people in 63 counties) and MT (1M people in 56 counties). I can't quite understand how the number of counties won by a candidate has any meaning whatsoever on why someone should or should not be elected president.
There may be good reasons for the EC, but who won more counties certainly is not one of them. And let me point out, I'm not against the Electoral College exactly. I'm against how STATES allocate their EV. This plurality wins all the votes is a big problem. It silences in various cases the majority of the state that voted against that candidate. In the past election alone, the following states awarded 100% of the EV to the candidate that did not even win the majority in that state: AZ, NC, MN, WI, NH, MI, PA, FL, ME, NV, CO, NM, VA)
And next someone will offer up that congressional districts won would be a good indicator, however once I bring up Gerrymandering that would shoot that idea right in the head.
I think what some fail to realize is that this isn't just "change the way we elect the President so our guy (or gal) wins next time." It is why don't we elect the President by popular vote in general, regardless of who would win. We elect every other official in this country by way of popular vote. There's also much stronger arguments than that, but that is the simplest to relate to.
However, what concerns me the most is your comment that I have since bolded. The OP's reasoning is based on counties. Counties are arbitrary. Some counties have less than 1000 people. Some populous states have as many counties as less populous states; earlier I pointed out NY (20M people in 63 counties) and MT (1M people in 56 counties). I can't quite understand how the number of counties won by a candidate has any meaning whatsoever on why someone should or should not be elected president.
There may be good reasons for the EC, but who won more counties certainly is not one of them. And let me point out, I'm not against the Electoral College exactly. I'm against how STATES allocate their EV. This plurality wins all the votes is a big problem. It silences in various cases the majority of the state that voted against that candidate. In the past election alone, the following states awarded 100% of the EV to the candidate that did not even win the majority in that state: AZ, NC, MN, WI, NH, MI, PA, FL, ME, NV, CO, NM, VA)
Can you explain how that happened with figures? That doesn't even sound possible. Last I heard is that Electoral votes, by state, with few exceptions go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state.
[/b]
Can you explain how that happened with figures? That doesn't even sound possible. Last I heard is that Electoral votes, by state, with few exceptions go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state.
Third party vote in those states so the winner has less than 50% of total votes cast. In 1992, with Ross Perot running a strong third party campaign, Bill Clinton won the EC easily (370 to 168) with only 43% of the total nationally. In the same election, Perot didn’t get a single EC vote, although he won nearly 19% of the votes cast.
I agree that proportional allocation of EC votes in all 50 states would be an improvement but all have to agree. You cannot have California agreeing and Texas not or vice versa. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Third party vote in those states so the winner has less than 50% of total votes cast. In 1992, with Ross Perot running a strong third party campaign, Bill Clinton won the EC easily with only 43% of the total nationally. In the same election, Perot didn’t get a single EC vote.
But they still won the popular vote within that state. In this discussion, what happened nationally in the election you mentioned is only a distraction.
California is not going to give away nearly half the electoral votes to the republican candidate if it sees that Texas is not going to give away its nearly half to the democratic candidate. So both will stick with winner takes all. And both sides will be unhappy and there is unlikely to be a viable third party candidate.
Even in the deep red and deep blue states the opposing side gets between 40-45% of the votes cast. Proportional EC voting will make democrats come out and vote in Texas and republicans in California since their votes might make a difference in the overall outcome.
California is not going to give away nearly half the electoral votes to the republican candidate if it sees that Texas is not going to give away its nearly half to the democratic candidate. So both will stick with winner takes all. And both sides will be unhappy.
First off all, after the primaries he had no reason to come here during the general election as he had WV wrapped up. Sanders beat Hillary in WV, Trump was going to win easily
Nailed it. Thanks.
Candidates effectively ignore states that are wrapped up. When they need your votes, they show up.
Primary season? Sure.
Getting a senator elected? Sure.
General election for President? No way.
The discussion here is about the Electoral College. Not about campaign stops in 2017 and 2018 for the President to be awash in the adulation of his supporters. It is about how candidates are nowhere to be found during the only time when the Electoral College actually comes into play.
WV and the other states listed are completely ignored. Another poster just mentioned "Well, Trump came to Arkansas! You are wrong!" Yes... when did he come to Arkansas? February 2016, right before the primary. Did he step foot in Arkansas after that? No. Did he spend any modicum of campaign money on the state afterwards? No. Why? Because like pknopp pointed out - Arkansas was "all wrapped up."
Do I blame him? No. Because the Electoral College allows candidates to ignore states that are "all wrapped up."
Note: I'm not saying abolish the Electoral College. People immediately get at odds over this. I'm making this about discussing what the faults are and how people defending it are defending it for reasons that actually hurt the value of their own vote.
Candidates effectively ignore states that are wrapped up. When they need your votes, they show up.
Primary season? Sure.
Getting a senator elected? Sure.
General election for President? No way.
The discussion here is about the Electoral College. Not about campaign stops in 2017 and 2018 for the President to be awash in the adulation of his supporters. It is about how candidates are nowhere to be found during the only time when the Electoral College actually comes into play.
WV and the other states listed are completely ignored. Another poster just mentioned "Well, Trump came to Arkansas! You are wrong!" Yes... when did he come to Arkansas? February 2016, right before the primary. Did he step foot in Arkansas after that? No. Did he spend any modicum of campaign money on the state afterwards? No. Why? Because like pknopp pointed out - Arkansas was "all wrapped up."
Do I blame him? No. Because the Electoral College allows candidates to ignore states that are "all wrapped up."
Note: I'm not saying abolish the Electoral College. People immediately get at odds over this. I'm making this about discussing what the faults are and how people defending it are defending it for reasons that actually hurt the value of their own vote.
But this isn't rocket science. No candidate has the time and money to constantly fly to each of the 50 states and visit all the towns small and large on a regular basis whether or not the EC existed. Without the EC most candidates if not all will concentrate on larger cities, not states and most likely ignore small states all together. If a city or town or state has a small population, it won't be worthwhile visiting if the EC was eliminated.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,333 posts, read 54,437,898 times
Reputation: 40736
[quote=kamban;52375527] Today it may be 11 or 12 but changing demographics might make that number higher as our country becomes less white.[/QUOTE}
And? The fact is 'one man, one vote' never changes and gives every citizen an equal voice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamban
I agree that proportional allocation of EC votes in all 50 states would be an improvement but all have to agree. You cannot have California agreeing and Texas not or vice versa. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I think it's ludicrous as is. i.e. Say a state has a population of 100,000,000. The vote is 50,000,001 to 49,999,999 and 49,999,999 votes are discarded as if they never existed while the candidate receiving 50,000,001 gets all the electoral votes of that state. I doubt there's any argument that could convince me that's fair in any way, shape, or form.
It's laughable when we pat ourselves on the back for attempting to bring democracy to places like Iraq when we don't have one ourselves.
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.
