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.
It is OBVIOUSLY flawed because it essentially disenfranchises voters in large states in favor of smaller ones because of its winner takes all metric!
The electoral college defends minority states from domination by large more populated states. When the Constitution was created the Senate to House relation was more heavily leaning toward the Senate. If anything, 4 elector votes per Senator should be allowed today, this would restore the initial balance set by our founders between the House and Senate when selecting a President.
It is OBVIOUSLY flawed because it essentially disenfranchises voters in large states in favor of smaller ones because of its winner takes all metric! If it was proportional voting, Trump NEVER wins because, for example, in a state with 30 electoral college votes but where he wins 51% he gets say 16 votes not 30. Texas would have been much more important to Clinton. At a minimum, winner take all state wins should only be allowed if one candidate can get 60% or more of that state's voting total.
Exactly. This would help give conservatives in say New York or California an incentive a vote while liberals in say Texas or even smaller states (even Arizona) to actually vote. Right now if you are a conservative in a blue state or a liberal in a red state, why even bother voting?
So let's look at what would have happened... Texas has 38 votes and went 52.23% for Trump, 43.24% for Clinton and Johnson getting 3.16% making 20 votes for Trump, 16 votes for Clinton and Johnson with 1 vote (leaving one elector.) Likewise New York only has 29 votes saw 59.01% for Clinton, 36.52% for Trump and 2.29% for Johnson making 17 votes for Clinton, 10 votes for Trump, and 1 vote for Johnson (again another one elector); Florida also has 29 votes and went 49.02% for Trump, 47.82% for Clinton and 2.20% for Johnson making 14 votes for Trump, 14 votes for Clinton and Johnson with 1 vote; and California with their 55 votes 61.73% for Clinton, 31.62% for Trump, 3.37% for Johnson 1.98% for Stein giving us 34 votes for Clinton, 17 votes for Trump, 2 votes for Johnson and 1 vote for Stein (leaving yet another one elector.)
The only problem I've seen is round off issues of the independent votes causing say 1 elector to be not bound.
The electoral college defends minority states from domination by large more populated states. When the Constitution was created the Senate to House relation was more heavily leaning toward the Senate. If anything, 4 elector votes per Senator should be allowed today, this would restore the initial balance set by our founders between the House and Senate when selecting a President.
Which is just a way of saying that smaller group of voters gets to prevail over a larger group of voters. This is the antithesis of what an election is all about.
True or false. States are non-living entities.
True or false. Non-living entities are not human and therefore do not have rights.
The "rights" that we speak of are accorded to the people who live in those states. A citizen in Wyoming, Alaska, and Delaware should have no more a right when it comes to voting than a citizen in California, Florida, or Texas.
Please stop acting like states have rights. They don't have rights any more than automobiles do.
Which is just a way of saying that smaller group of voters gets to prevail over a larger group of voters. This is the antithesis of what an election is all about.
I'm for proportional allocation of electoral votes, but it would need to be done in all states, not just some. If just red or blue states did it, they would be disadvantaged relative to the other party, which would garner 100% of their states' electoral votes.
A major problem with this is that it is much more likely that no candidate would win a majority of electoral votes, due to third parties being able to garner a significant proportion of electoral votes, with the election being thrown into a heavily gerrymandered, and thus unrepresentative, House of Representatives to decide between the top three electoral vote getters, with one vote for each state delegation, heavily favoring rural "red" states. It is quite possible that the least popular of the three candidates could be elected.
The best way to deal with this, in my opinion, would be to have a national run-off between the two candidates with the most electoral votes, taking the House entirely out of the process.
Is it vastly superior to anything today's political geniuses would contrive?
No
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.
