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.
Under the current scenario, congressional districts are irrelevant. If Candidate A gets 50.001 percent of the overall statewide vote in California, he wins all 55 electoral votes. And the 49.999 percent of the voters who voted for Candidate B get nothing.
Under my plan, the vote would be tallied by congressional district, though it could just as easily be determined the percentage of the overall vote for each candidate. If Candidate A won 27 districts, and also won the overall statewide vote, and Candidate B won 26 of them, then Candidate A would win 29 electoral votes (1 for each of the 27 districts, plus the 2 statewide electors for having won the overall statewide vote) and Candidate B would win 26 electoral votes.
It would not make any difference if there were an even number of districts. My own state of Maryland has 8 districts, 7 of which are represented by Democrats and 1 by a Republican. (We can thank gerrymandering for that lopsided result, but that's an argument for another thread.) Let's pretend that the voters cast their votes for president in exactly the same way as they did for their congressman. In this case, the Democrat would get 9 electoral votes (1 for each of the 7 districts he won, plus the 2 statewide votes) and the Republican would get 1. In real life, the voting is not so lopsided, and the Republican candidate could expect to earn 2 or even 3 electoral votes in Maryland.
Also, remember that the 2 statewide electoral votes are analogous to the fact that each state has 2 senators. Both of those votes would go to whoever won the overall statewide vote, regardless of the margin and regardless of how each district voted. The only way these two electors would be split is if there was an exact, to-the-last-man tie in the statewide vote.
As it stands now, Republicans basically concede California and New York and Democrats basically concede Texas. Just imagine if those states awarded their electoral votes proportionately; you would see the candidates compete throughout the nation, not just in a handful of battleground states. And the people's votes would count far more than they do now.
1: So what happens if candidate A or B does not win both a majority of districts AND a majority of the popular vote?
1A: Wins popular vote, but not a majority of districts?
1B: Wins a majority of districts, but not the popular vote?
I think the electoral college is somewhat of a scam.
-The cynical part of me thinks that its in place because a true democracy (votes by the people) is too dangerous. The electoral college counterbalances any sort of uprising or mass popular dissent.
Look at Ross Perot in 1992. He got 18% of the popular vote, but none of the electoral college. Is the electoral college put into place to squash 3rd party candidates?
I think the legislative branch of government is also getting outdated. Two senators per state seems very outdated. Why not 4 or 5? 435 members of Congress seems far too small to get anything done (in a country of 300 million people??).
Can the electoral college be too easily manipulated with computer programs??
1: So what happens if candidate A or B does not win both a majority of districts AND a majority of the popular vote?
1A: Wins popular vote, but not a majority of districts?
1B: Wins a majority of districts, but not the popular vote?
2: Which takes precedence district or voter?
3: When and why?
Neither takes precedence because they are separate. Let's say that Candidate A wins the popular vote in my state plus 3 out of 8 districts (Scenario 1A.) Candidate B wins 5 districts but does not win the popular vote (Scenario 1B). Candidate A earns 5 electoral votes: the 2 for winning statewide, plus the 3 for the districts he won. Candidate B wins 5 votes for the districts he won.
In this particular case, it's a tie. But if Candidate B won 6 districts (but still lost the popular vote), then the outcome would be that Candidate A would earn 4 votes (2 for statewide, two for the districts won) and Candidate B would earn 6 votes (for the districts won).
Can the electoral college be too easily manipulated with computer programs??
If you modify how it works, it easily can be. That is, if candidates get a percentage of the EC votes based on their total votes in a state, then that's easy to manipulate.
PS- Sorry I wasn't around everyone to babysit my thread but I tore up a knee and was laid up.
The issue that I have with the Republican plan to allocate a state's electors by congressional district is that is introduces gerrymandering into the election of the President of the United States.
Under such a plan, Mitt Romney would have eked out a 273 vote Electoral College win in 2012 despite having lost the popular vote, 47% to Barack Obama's 51%; which I guess is OK if your goal is to make the election less democratic.
The issue that I have with the Republican plan to allocate a state's electors by congressional district is that is introduces gerrymandering into the election of the President of the United States.
Under such a plan, Mitt Romney would have eked out a 273 vote Electoral College win in 2012 despite having lost the popular vote, 47% to Barack Obama's 51%; which I guess is OK if your goal is to make the election less democratic. What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans' Vote-Rigging Plan
It just sounds like how much of the world voters choose a Prime Minister, without having to vote for a local David Duke if he was in the same party as a Barack Obama. The line would just be a floating congressional district and not a fixed state line.
Neither takes precedence because they are separate. Let's say that Candidate A wins the popular vote in my state plus 3 out of 8 districts (Scenario 1A.) Candidate B wins 5 districts but does not win the popular vote (Scenario 1B). Candidate A earns 5 electoral votes: the 2 for winning statewide, plus the 3 for the districts he won. Candidate B wins 5 votes for the districts he won.
In this particular case, it's a tie. But if Candidate B won 6 districts (but still lost the popular vote), then the outcome would be that Candidate A would earn 4 votes (2 for statewide, two for the districts won) and Candidate B would earn 6 votes (for the districts won).
I like the District idea, in principle, but don't think it will work in practice. Here's why.
Since twenty states have an even number of districts, they have much greater potential to produce a tie, by various combinations, as you have just demonstrated. That alone in my view is sufficient to reject, because it significantly increases the possibility of gridlock.
But there's another reason. In such a system candidates would have greater incentive to lock up the states with an uneven number of districts, in order to try to avoid gridlock, particularly the big states, and would therefore focus more heavily on those. But, because redistricting takes place every 10 years, and is now mostly in the hands of the dominant party in each state, and states can flip flop from even to uneven or reverse, no reliable long term formula for campaigning/electioneering can be achieved.
Bottom line, I think we end up with more, not less, confusion, and that is more, not less, likely to lead to more unintended consequences.
If you modify how it works, it easily can be. That is, if candidates get a percentage of the EC votes based on their total votes in a state, then that's easy to manipulate.
PS- Sorry I wasn't around everyone to babysit my thread but I tore up a knee and was laid up.
Hope you are feeling much better......breaking bones and the healing is so painful...
I think the last elections, were manipulated; because in my thinking, it is how we ended up with Bush II and Obama; not my choices, guess some people liked them.
I just hate when the voting is JUST over and they KNOW who the next POTUS is. Red, states Blue states, it's like the Super Bowl of elections...................
First off, states can decide right now how they want to allocate their electoral votes. Most do winner-take-all but a couple do proportional, which they can do based on the popular vote or by Congressional district.
Second, small states would become even less important than they are now. No matter how small, all states have at least 3 electoral votes, which includes South Dakota (810k), Alaska (710k), North Dakota (670k), Vermont (645k), and Wyoming (560k). These states have between 1.5 and 2% of Cali's population (37250k). In the EC, all these states get 5.5% of Cali's 55 electoral vote.
Third, any amendment that did away with the EC would have to provide for a solution for choosing a POTUS in the case of no candidate getting a majority.
Fourth, popular election is going to change how candidates campaign but not necessarily the way that people think. Small states will become even more irrelevant as candidates will concentrate where they have a chance of winning lots of votes not in areas where they have no chance or already have as many as they're going to get or where there's not enough to bother with.
It just sounds like how much of the world voters choose a Prime Minister, without having to vote for a local David Duke if he was in the same party as a Barack Obama. The line would just be a floating congressional district and not a fixed state line.
Not the same situation. A Prime Minister is more analogous to the Speaker of the House than to the President of the United States. The President is more analogous to the King of England, except of course, that the President is not the national sovereign, is elected, can be removed from office via a political process, and eventually relinquishes his position.
Consider that in 1787 the Founding Fathers had the example of the British government and chose to not enact a parliamentary form.
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.
