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.
This is a popular argument, usually waged by the side that lost the election. The electoral college has it's purpose. Populism isn't a difficult concept to comprehend. If votes boiled down to simply how many like minded people resided in a given state no candidate (or reporter) would leave California or New York.
This is why I suggest the candidates get that percentage of electors. If a state has 10 electors and one candidate gets 50% of the vote, another gets 40% and between three third party nominees, or gets 6%, another gets 3 and the final gets 1%, well the winner only gets 5 electoral votes, the opponent gets 4 and the third party candidate that got 6% gets 1. It keeps the power of the states with 90% intact but puts closer races in not a total defeat. In fact, it would have made the Trump battleground wins not as powerful.
FYI, I had this idea when Romney lost in 2012 as well.
That's your state's decision. If your state doesn't apportion its electoral votes according to percentage, then take that up with your state legislature. That's in the hands of your state, not the federal government.
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.
Yes. So? The group that loses is always the ones complaining (that year), "We wuz robbed! The system is rigged!"
The reason that happened is because the Democratic Party runs itself from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Democrats don't keep their base energized for all elections instead of just the presidential elections.
Yes. So? The group that loses is always the ones complaining (that year), "We wuz robbed! The system is rigged!"
The reason that happened is because the Democratic Party runs itself from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Democrats don't keep their base energized for all elections instead of just the presidential elections.
Except I used to feel that way when I was a middle of the road Rockefeller/Scranton/Romney Republican, too. In fact, when I learned about the Electoral College in high school I thought it was dumb. I believe in one man, one vote, win or lose. Period.
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.
I do think that the electoral college is far too arcane as it stands. I think the perfect fix is a national law mandating states to go to a proportion of the state's popular vote. For a real world example: Arizona went to McCain 53.63%-45.12% in 2008. At the time AZ had 10 votes so he would get 5 votes, as would Obama (rounded up.) I would concede to maybe make a tiebreaker vote that automatically goes to the winner.
I deleted the rest of your rant since that is entirely off-topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Baustian
The best reform would be done at the state level, by changing the winner-take-all system to one where the winner in each congressional district gets one electoral vote and the statewide winner gets two.
There would be no "safe" states, like Texas, New York, California and Illinois. Presidential candidates could pick up electoral votes in almost every state with more than two or three congressional districts. Nebraska and Maine already do this.
But the Democrats would never vote for this in the states they control, and Republicans are unlikely to do it in Florida or Texas.
But like the Pennsylvania example (I don't recall if it was on here or not), it could easily be gerrymandered to either party's strengths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
That's your state's decision. If your state doesn't apportion its electoral votes according to percentage, then take that up with your state legislature. That's in the hands of your state, not the federal government.
"My state" wouldn't go for it. As it stands, Arizona has 11 electoral votes. Trump couldn't even get 50% in the state, yet won by 3% none the less. Down from the 52% Romney won with in 2012 and McCain's 53% in 2008. In fact, B. Clinton is the only Democrat to win AZ.
"My state" wouldn't go for it. As it stands, Arizona has 11 electoral votes. Trump couldn't even get 50% in the state, yet won by 3% none the less. Down from the 52% Romney won with in 2012 and McCain's 53% in 2008. In fact, B. Clinton is the only Democrat to win AZ.
So basically you want the federal government to make your state do what you don't have a majority of state voters to vote for it to do.
You don't really believe in "one man, one vote" if you don't accept it at the state level.
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.
I beg to differ. There would be at least two ill effects from changing: 1) We'd change "ground zero" of campaigns from Ohio and Florida to the suburbs of Los Angeles and New York; and 2) we'd wind up with a runoff if no candidate got more than 50% of the vote.
Right now candidates target large electoral vote states that swing back and forth. What would happen in a popular vote race is that vote-rich areas such as major city suburbs that have lots of Republican voters, but not enough to turn their states, would be the targets. Where I live, in suburban New York City life could get seriously annoying.
But it is broken. Twice in recent decades candidates who have gotten the most votes lost the election. That's broken.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE ELECT PRESIDENTS!!!! What about that DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? There was no MISTAKE in the 2000 or 2016 elections. They happened EXACTLY as they were supposed to. Nobody called Hillary Clinton the day before the election and SURPRISED her with the fact that the national popular vote didn't matter. She KNEW the rules going in.
Liberals seem to think that democracy is the system of government in which THEY win every time. Anything else is a "broken system". It's a disgusting trait among you people.
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.
yet won by 3% none the less. Down from the 52% Romney won with in 2012 and McCain's 53% in 2008. In fact, B. Clinton is the only Democrat to win AZ.
