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 structure of the Senate protects small states. The only way to improve the electoral college is for states to choose their electors based on the national popular vote.
There are many ways to improve the Electoral College, but that is not one of them.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Baustian
Words that have gone out of usage are obsolete. Horse-drawn carriages and mule teams pulling plows or wagons are obsolete. But the Electoral College is still in regular usage, so is not obsolete.
There are still big and small states, but even if all states had the same population the EC would still be a good idea. In practice it could be improved, by the states changing how the electors are chosen; but in theory it is fine.
You are using a very narrow definition of the word obsolete.
The electoral college is calculated based on the whole of the population and when that system was picked, they specifically went with it for the 3 reasons I named.
since people of all colors and genders can now vote. That makes reason number 1 obsolete(no longer needed)
Reason number 2 was whether, and with mail in ballots and early voting. That too is obsolete.
Reason #3 is small states vs big ones . The is the only one you could argue is still needed when it comes to the 2 senate votes calculated in the EC, but im not advocating removing that.
I would simply argue for a proportional electoral college instead of winner take all. That way the will of the population is actually taken into account, because in the current states
Someone could win the 12 most populous states by 1 vote each,win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote by 30 million votes.
I've already made these points, so will simply reiterate:
1) It would take the legislatures of 38 states to amend the Constitution, so the Electoral College is not going away.
2) It is up to the states to change the ways they choose the electors. I agree that winner-take-all is not optimal, and that assigning one vote for the winner of each congressional district and two for the statewide winner would be an excellent reform. (But I would also be satisfied if the electors were chosen at random from all registered voters regardless of party affiliation.)
3) There are some suggested reforms which would actually be quite terrible, as they could result in all the electors from a state going to a candidate whose opponent actually won the popular vote. I refer to the NPV scheme.
I've already made these points, so will simply reiterate:
1) It would take the legislatures of 38 states to amend the Constitution, so the Electoral College is not going away.
2) It is up to the states to change the ways they choose the electors. I agree that winner-take-all is not optimal, and that assigning one vote for the winner of each congressional district and two for the statewide winner would be an excellent reform. (But I would also be satisfied if the electors were chosen at random from all registered voters regardless of party affiliation.)
3) There are some suggested reforms which would actually be quite terrible, as they could result in all the electors from a state going to a candidate whose opponent actually won the popular vote. I refer to the NPV scheme.
The district idea isnt even that good of an idea. We would need independent district creation to prevent gerrymandering the districts. I say this because both parties are guilty. Until we do independent districting, it will be flawed and even after we will be hearing that there was gerrymandering when someone don't get their way.
How does it leave rural voters out? Their votes count the same as anyone else's - except with the Electoral College, they often count more, which is not exactly fair and equitable.
My main issue with the electoral college is the "winner take all" concept of electoral votes in each state. If a candidate wins a state by one vote - meaning that half of the state's voters wanted the other candidate - I don't see that he or she should get all of the state's electoral votes.
Since you mentioned rural voters, IMO the Electoral College gives them a disproportionate amount of influence, and allows them to impose outcomes on much larger groups of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I don't understand that comment either. Harry Jenkins in Idaho gets 1 vote. Clyde Sampson in New York City gets 1 vote. Neither got left out. Must be new Common Core math.
The power of the vote is different. Harry and his towm may vote one way but Clyde and his fellow NYCers vote the other and they are far larger. As it stands electorally, the inverse is also true where Harry has a more powerful vote than Clyde. I think Harry has the power of two to three Clyde votes due to the two state's populations.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Baustian
I've already made these points, so will simply reiterate:
1) It would take the legislatures of 38 states to amend the Constitution, so the Electoral College is not going away.
whether or not something is likely to happen has no baring on the discussion. And considering this is a great debates forum, thats a pretty weak argument.
Quote:
2) It is up to the states to change the ways they choose the electors. I agree that winner-take-all is not optimal, and that assigning one vote for the winner of each congressional district and two for the statewide winner would be an excellent reform. (But I would also be satisfied if the electors were chosen at random from all registered voters regardless of party affiliation.)
Congressional districts are draw mostly along partisan lines. choosing the President alone those lines is an even worse argument to make.
The best system is to simply allocate electoral college votes according to state popular vote. Its that simple.
Quote:
3) There are some suggested reforms which would actually be quite terrible, as they could result in all the electors from a state going to a candidate whose opponent actually won the popular vote. I refer to the NPV scheme.
your suggestion does that same thing. It is 100% possible someone could win the populate vote in a state like Iowa, but lose 3 of the 4 congressional districts.
Barack Obama won Ohio and both times, he lost a majority of the congressional districts because they are drawn so partisan.
It depends on whether the nation wants to change the fundamental nature of the United States, specifically, whether this is a union of semi-autonomous states as originally created or a single entity with mere organizational divisions.
It was created as a union of semi-autonomous states. As such, there are actually no "national" elections constitutionally. All elections are at state level or below.
In presidential elections, as defined by the constitution, state citizens vote for the person their state desires to be president.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, in that in most cases state residency creates more common interests than other kinds of associations.
The only reason "swing" states exist is because there is an ongoing conflict of interests within that state. IMO, that's an internal problem that should be resolved within the state, not by jury-rigging at the federal level. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for one group in a state to effectively band with people outside the state to override the interests of others in that state.
IOW, I'd say, "Y'all folks in Florida need to work out your issues on your own."
States that are internally unified in their common interests should not be penalized for being so. Nor is there any injustice to political minorities in such states--that's how democracy is supposed to work.
That arrangement can be fixed without changing the Constitution or the Electoral College. Each state has the option of doing what Nebraska and Maine already do: assigning one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district plus two electoral votes to the statewide winner.
I don't see how that fixes anything. You can still have a very close split, and it's still winner take all.
I don't see how that fixes anything. You can still have a very close split, and it's still winner take all.
Yes, the winner takes the oath of office and the loser goes home.
But if each congressional district chooses an elector individually, then presidential candidates will have to campaign everywhere. Not just in the swing states like today, or the handful of most populous states if the Constitution is amended to eliminate the Electoral College. (which, of course, will not happen)
So remind me again whats the reason for not having popular vote? other then bigger towns will have better battle grounds for debates?
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.
