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 100% agree. I also think that the party system should be abolished and "individuals" with individual ideas should run. The party system divides the nation and then the electoral college seems to divide it even more. Just tally up the votes nationwide and whoever has the most wins.
That is prevented by the First Amendment in a couple of different ways.
Remember that political parties are not government entities, they are free associations of individual voters. You'd have to prohibit people from discussing politics among themselves.
I would say the proportional electoral vote I suggest is a best of all worlds. Swing states are demphasozed and states like Texas, Arizona, California and New York might be visited by other parties to get out the vote rather than skipping them for battlegrounds.
Proportional to what? It's already proportional to geographic regions. What factor do you propose to make it proportional to?
As I said before, the only reason "swing" states exist is because those states haven't come to their own internal agreement.
If political minorities in Texas, Arizona, California and New York aren't getting their candidates elected, it's because they are political minorities.
If you have a democratic process, then one way or another there will be some political minority that doesn't get its candidate elected....and that is how democracy is supposed to work.
Any system you try to implement to replace the electoral college is going to be 'flawed'. When have humans ever created a perfect system? People are upset because the electoral college worked exactly as it's supposed to work, but their candidate lost. Sorry, but that's not a reason to change a system that has worked for a couple of centuries.
That is prevented by the First Amendment in a couple of different ways.
Remember that political parties are not government entities, they are free associations of individual voters. You'd have to prohibit people from discussing politics among themselves.
They are not government entities but I'm not sure they are free associations of voters either. During the primaries whenever people were defending Hillary's steamrolling of Sanders or musing about having a party chosen replacement for Trump we were repeatedly reminded that the parties themselves were ultimately in charge of choosing the candidates and not the voters who purportedly associated with the parties. We were even told that primary votes were more of a formality and a favor the parties did so the voters could feel involved, but that they were not technically binding, with the democrats even going as far as to assign super delegates who would vote the way the party wanted when the voters wanted someone different.
Any system you try to implement to replace the electoral college is going to be 'flawed'. When have humans ever created a perfect system? People are upset because the electoral college worked exactly as it's supposed to work, but their candidate lost. Sorry, but that's not a reason to change a system that has worked for a couple of centuries.
Why not? Why do we need to be so wedded to what went on hundreds of years ago. None of us lives as they did hundreds of years ago.
Trust me, if what happened with Gore and Hillary had happened to 2 Republican presidential candidates, the GOP would be crying to change the electoral system.
In the past nine months since the election we have hard that the electoral college is flawed. Two out of the last five elections saw a different popular vote than the electoral vote, that is simple to understand. But is it a symptom of the system and we should just leave it or should we fix the system? And if we chose to fix it, what do we do?
I say yes. It let's only 10% of the voting populous truly decide the president since they live in swing states. If you live outside of a swing state, what is the use in voting? My suggestion, tie electoral votes to the state's popular vote. So you win 60% of state's popular vote, you get 60% of the votes. For states with 5 votes, that would be 3 votes going to a given candidate.
No. The flaw is the way those people who don't like the electoral college are thinking. If we did away with the electoral college many states would have no voice in how our government is run. That would be a major problem for all of us. I think those who set up our government were divinely lead. Our government's rules are genius. The senate gives all states equal representation so states like New York, Texas and California cannot dictate to other states. The electoral college does the same thing.
The biggest problem we are having with our government is the courts have become political and corrupt and have stopped judging and started legislating. Obamacare should be illegal according to the constitution but the court and not congress decided the money people would pay was a tax when it clearly should not have been.
We have a president right now who is equaling the system but the corrupt people in our government are trying to get rid of him because he is stopping them from abusing the rest of us. What we have in the Capitol right now is a battle between good and evil. Let's all hope good wins.
If we had no electoral college there would be no checks and balances for our voting system. Balance is needed. California is a whacko state that does not like law and order. This is evidenced by the number of sanctuary cities and non-citizens that have been allowed to vote. Thank goodness this kind of corruption did not have a commanding effect on our last election because we have the electoral college.
By my reckoning, the main problem isn’t with the electoral college per se, but that in nearly all cases, a state’s electors are awarded per winner-take-all.
Imagine a scenario where a particular candidate is preferred by overwhelming majorities of people in some states, while his/her rival is preferred by thin majorities of people in other states. Depending on state-size (number of electors), if there are more of the aforementioned thin-majority states, a candidate could have a distinct minority of popular votes, and yet still win the election.
To give a fanciful example, suppose that 50.1 % of the people in each of California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Florida, Georgia, Washington, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota choose one candidate, whereas in the other states, 90% of the population choses the opposing candidate. The sum of the electors of these named 12 states is 273 – enough to win the presidency. We then have 12 states overruling the other 38, not to mention a minority (and a quite small one!) of people, overruling the majority. Is this what we want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
As I said before, the only reason "swing" states exist is because those states haven't come to their own internal agreement.
Many states have a rural vs. urban divide within them, or a stark regional divide. Consider for example Northern Virginia, which is essentially part of the urbanized Northeast, and the rest of Virginia, which is really the South. Because these two parts of Virginia are so different, to award the entire state’s electors to one candidate, would disregard the wishes of one or the other part. Another example is Illinois, which can be divided into Chicago, and everything else. Or Minnesota (Minneapolis-St. Paul, and everywhere else).
In my proposed scheme, there would be one elector awarded per congressional district. Win the district, and you win the elector.
The Electoral College vote gets raised after every Presidential election by the losing party -- and defended by the winning party. Ultimately, politicians have the same opportunity to seek and take optimal advantage of whatever system is in play.
Ironically, the losing party candidate knew how to play the "super-delegate" system (a 'form' of an EC system), and used it to disproportionately influenced the primaries -- (Nobody was talking about a popular majority vote there!)
The issue with a one man/one vote majority vote system is that it inevitably favors the more populous states and regions. This raises the question of whether the interests of California (for example), adequately reflect the interests of much smaller states with rural populations.
The Electoral College vote gets raised after every Presidential election by the losing party -- and defended by the winning party. Ultimately, politicians have the same opportunity to seek and take optimal advantage of whatever system is in play.
Ironically, the losing party candidate knew how to play the "super-delegate" system (a 'form' of an EC system), and used it to disproportionately influenced the primaries -- (Nobody was talking about a popular majority vote there!)
The issue with a one man/one vote majority vote system is that it inevitably favors the more populous states and regions. This raises the question of whether the interests of California (for example), adequately reflect the interests of much smaller states with rural populations.
On the other hand, under the electoral college system, all of California's and New York's votes go to a candidate who may have only won 50.1% of those state's votes. How does that make sense?
Why not advocate for eliminating the House of Representatives if you feel the EC is "problematic"?
Electoral votes serve a similar purpose to (and follow many of the same rules as) the House of Representatives. Why is is that so many want to get rid of the Electoral College system, but ignore that the House is set up the same way?
We are the United States of America. People forget that the word State used to mean something.
A direct popular vote system would take even more power away from "States" as an entity, incentivizing candidates to appeal only to the biggest population centers. Candidates would hang out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston and give short shrift to smaller states.
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.
Why not advocate for eliminating the House of Representatives if you feel the EC is "problematic"?
