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 needs to be modified. Im thinking proportional + 2 for winning the state.
As now. most states dont matter. Im in NJ. It was a foregone conclusion Hillary would win NJ. And no, I did not vote for Hillary. Or Bernie. Or Jill Stein.
America was going to lose no matter which of the turds won.
the only thing about proportional division of electors is that when you look at the electoral map, you will find that a proportional division will almost guarantee republicans in the white house for a long time. someone suggested proportioning electors by congressional districts, and that again virtually guarantees republicans in the white house for a long time.
as it is now, each state has a proportional say in who is president, and it has been shown with this election that you cannot take certain areas for granted anymore. four states that went for obama in 2012 flipped and went for trump this time around. why? because trump went in those states and spoke to the people and gave them a positive message. clinton either went in and said vote for me because trump is a jackass, or ignored them altogether.
This is true, leftists claim to be for "fairness" and "equality", but if they had their way then literally 2-3 large population-dense leftist cities such as LA, San Diego, and NYC would decide every president. Doesn't sound very "fair" to me when you look at the rest of the country .....
And of course, if ONLY these 2-3 large leftist metros mattered then there would be NO purpose at all in "campaigning" in small rural areas or smaller mid-sized towns And "fly over country" would have no say in the elections either
So "fairness"-minded leftists are A-OK with huge geographical swaths of America having literally NO voice or say in the government?? What about "fairness"?
Actually, what it means is that someone in California's vote would count as much as anyone else's vote.
Or are you OK with the millions of disenfranchised California Republicans who trudge the polls every four years knowing their vote won't (and never does) count?
The electoral college gives each person in Wyoming much more power than each person in California. Why is that acceptable?
If, to use an extreme example, all of the people to be governed are in certain states, then shouldn't that be where decisions are made from?
The safeguard for the small states should be the Senate, a sort of "house of lords" to check any extreme reach by the masses.
The electoral college, because it is affected by the senate makeup, is resulting in people being disenfranchised.
They can just back the senators out of the equation. The over representation of small states dissapears. You want to avoid having to have a national recount (think florida 2000 X50), which is why a straight popular election creates problems.
The small states will never agree to this and it would take a constitutional amendment, so it's not happening
The safeguard for the small states should be the Senate, a sort of "house of lords" to check any extreme reach by the masses.
The electoral college, because it is affected by the senate makeup, is resulting in people being disenfranchised.
They can just back the senators out of the equation. The over representation of small states dissapears. You want to avoid having to have a national recount (think florida 2000 X50), which is why a straight popular election creates problems.
The small states will never agree to this and it would take a constitutional amendment, so it's not happening
I disagree. I bet you the first time a Republican presidential candidate loses the election the same way Hillary and Gore lost in '16 and '00, that'll be the end of the EC.
EC victory/popular vote loss has always benefited Republicans historically. Look it up.
This is true, leftists claim to be for "fairness" and "equality", but if they had their way then literally 2-3 large population-dense leftist cities such as LA, San Diego, and NYC would decide every president. Doesn't sound very "fair" to me when you look at the rest of the country .....
And of course, if ONLY these 2-3 large leftist metros mattered then there would be NO purpose at all in "campaigning" in small rural areas or smaller mid-sized towns And "fly over country" would have no say in the elections either
So "fairness"-minded leftists are A-OK with huge geographical swaths of America having literally NO voice or say in the government?? What about "fairness"?
Pretty meaningless map that shows square areas of land.
It's people that vote, not land.
You need a map that represents numbers of people voting, not the area of land.
Most of those western states combined populations fits into the size of New Jersey.
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
11:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012
Want to start with this snowflake?
Yes, for a democracy, I suppose the Electors would be a disaster.
The problem is, the United States is not, and never has been, a "democracy".
The Founding Fathers hated and feared "democracy".
The United States was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic.
"The United states shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,..." (Article IV, Section 4, United States Constitution).
Of course, that has nothing to do with the Republican Party...
Article II, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States describes how the Electors are chosen, and how they should vote. How they vote is controlled by the Legislatures of the various states. If you don't like the system as is, demand that YOUR State Legislature change it. Yes, YOUR Legislature CAN require that the Electoral Votes must be split in accordance with the popular vote in your state. IF they choose to do so!
I disagree. I bet you the first time a Republican presidential candidate loses the election the same way Hillary and Gore lost in '16 and '00, that'll be the end of the EC.
EC victory/popular vote loss has always benefited Republicans historically. Look it up.
Right because they would then have enough state legislatures to vote for the change.
Right now you have 32 states with 3-9 electoral votes who would never ratify an amendment to change the system, because they'd lose power in the process.
A constitutional amendment requires 2/3rds of states to ratify.
This is true, leftists claim to be for "fairness" and "equality", but if they had their way then literally 2-3 large population-dense leftist cities such as LA, San Diego, and NYC would decide every president. Doesn't sound very "fair" to me when you look at the rest of the country .....
And of course, if ONLY these 2-3 large leftist metros mattered then there would be NO purpose at all in "campaigning" in small rural areas or smaller mid-sized towns And "fly over country" would have no say in the elections either
So "fairness"-minded leftists are A-OK with huge geographical swaths of America having literally NO voice or say in the government?? What about "fairness"?
Cow pastures don't need representation. People do.
The safeguard against majority tyranny should be the Senate and Supreme Court. Right now it's the electoral college, the Supreme Court, and the Senate, which is too much.
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.
.....
And "fly over country" would have no say in the elections either 
