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 didn't read through all the comments, so maybe this has been already said/addressed.
I am not against the Electoral College per se .... I think it should remain.
However, I don't like "the winner take all" approach where all the states electors go to one candidate (either the Democrat or Republican). Instead, I think the electoral delegates should be allotted proportionally based on how many people in each state vote for a given candidate.
For example, if a state has 10 electoral delegates, and 60% of voters vote for the Democratic presidential candidate and 40% vote for the Republican, then 6 delegates should vote for the Democratic candidate and 4 for the Republican, not all 10 delegates for the Democrat.
If it were done this way, the Electoral College Vote would more accurately reflect the National Popular Vote.
Another benefit of this approach is everyone in every state can feel like their vote counts. The way it is now, if you reside in a majority red or blue state, and you like the other candidate, tough luck. The only people whose individual votes really count are those people located in a handful of swing states.
By doing that, that's basically the same as the popular vote itself. Not much point in it, if you're going to do that you might as well get rid of the electoral college anyway.
I didn't read through all the comments, so maybe this has been already said/addressed.
I am not against the Electoral College per se .... I think it should remain.
However, I don't like "the winner take all" approach where all the states electors go to one candidate (either the Democrat or Republican). Instead, I think the electoral delegates should be allotted proportionally based on how many people in each state vote for a given candidate.
For example, if a state has 10 electoral delegates, and 60% of voters vote for the Democratic presidential candidate and 40% vote for the Republican, then 6 delegates should vote for the Democratic candidate and 4 for the Republican, not all 10 delegates for the Democrat.
If it were done this way, the Electoral College Vote would more accurately reflect the National Popular Vote.
Another benefit of this approach is everyone in every state can feel like their vote counts. The way it is now, if you reside in a majority red or blue state, and you like the other candidate, tough luck. The only people whose individual votes really count are those people located in a handful of swing states.
The entire idea of the electoral college is pretty stupid.
People forget about 1/3 of people in big “Democrat” cities are Republican. Many conservatives in CA, NY or IL don’t even bother voting because the Democrats drown them out in the idiotic winner take all system we have. If their overall vote counts nationally they’re more likely to get involved.
Likewise not all people in rural states like Wyoming or Alabama are Republican. Liberals don’t bother voting there.
With better representation there would probably be more splits in current parties too so we don’t have to choose between extremists on either side.
Last edited by njbiodude; 10-15-2023 at 07:10 PM..
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but in this case, Pew is a top-notch polling firm so they're not going to be the kind of outfit that would try to get a biased result.
Nobody is claiming it should, after all, it's just a poll. As I said in my OP, I'm ambivalent about the issue but I just found it interesting that such a large majority would want it changed.
I actually agree the odds are close to nil it would ever get changed, at least any time soon ... maybe in, like, 100 or 200 or 300 years they might change it, but also ... maybe not. Who knows? But again, that's not the point. The reason I started this thread is that I found it interesting such a large majority don't like the system. Basically you have ~2/3 of the country putting up with a system they don't like. Is that sustainable? I dunno ... maybe, maybe not. If you look at the chart in my link you can see the electoral college has been unpopular since Pew first started asking the question in 2000. That's a pretty long while. Who knows, maybe some future event will make people change their mind ... but again, maybe not. One just has to wonder how long people will be willing to put up with a system they don't like.
If the people that wants the elected federal government to be done by national popular vote, they might as well do it for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate also not just for the President and drastically change the constitution and how We elect federal officials and tilt heavily representation to the few big states. They say "1 person 1 vote" and say the President's actions affects all in the nation but they can say the same thing for the House and Senate and while they are at it, let's pick the Supreme Court by popular vote also since their argument can also be applied to the S.C. Anything that has to do with federal officials should be by a national popular vote if We use their argument. The problem with that is you have to burn down the whole constitution and start all over again. You think the people that wants a National Popular vote will stop at just the President when the other 2 branches have the same effect and even more? They want to go from a Republic to pure Democracy. Basically the mob calls the shots.
Personally it will create a mess and and a huge division and why should the smaller states (like 35) stay in the union when all the federal government will be decided by a few big states and they have all the power? Why stay?
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 10-15-2023 at 07:28 PM..
I didn't read through all the comments, so maybe this has been already said/addressed.
I am not against the Electoral College per se .... I think it should remain.
However, I don't like "the winner take all" approach where all the states electors go to one candidate (either the Democrat or Republican). Instead, I think the electoral delegates should be allotted proportionally based on how many people in each state vote for a given candidate.
For example, if a state has 10 electoral delegates, and 60% of voters vote for the Democratic presidential candidate and 40% vote for the Republican, then 6 delegates should vote for the Democratic candidate and 4 for the Republican, not all 10 delegates for the Democrat.
If it were done this way, the Electoral College Vote would more accurately reflect the National Popular Vote.
Another benefit of this approach is everyone in every state can feel like their vote counts. The way it is now, if you reside in a majority red or blue state, and you like the other candidate, tough luck. The only people whose individual votes really count are those people located in a handful of swing states.
But it shouldn't reflect the national popular vote because each state is different. If the people of each state wants to do by proportion, it's up to the people of each state. All elections in the state for federal and state office is by winner takes all (except district but the same concept) so why should it be a different for the President?
The people of Texas could care less what California thinks of their choice. It's the people of each state to decide. They don't need to match the will of other states. That's is not how this country was founded or what the states agreed to when they entered the union.
I personally think that each state should get 1 vote for President, winner takes all in each state and the people of each individual state decide so that will make all candidates campaign in all 50 states instead of 10 or less and you need 30 states min. to be President. If both fall short, We have a run off and whoever gets 26. That's my opinion. That's the best way to make both candidates to actual campaign in all 50 states and build a coalition in different geographies in the nation.
If people want a pure democracy then let's do all federal positions in all 3 branches by national popular vote and change drastically the constitution and the foundation of the government. It will be a mess and create a huge division but at least be consistent in the argument.
I didn't read through all the comments, so maybe this has been already said/addressed.
I am not against the Electoral College per se .... I think it should remain.
However, I don't like "the winner take all" approach where all the states electors go to one candidate (either the Democrat or Republican). Instead, I think the electoral delegates should be allotted proportionally based on how many people in each state vote for a given candidate.
For example, if a state has 10 electoral delegates, and 60% of voters vote for the Democratic presidential candidate and 40% vote for the Republican, then 6 delegates should vote for the Democratic candidate and 4 for the Republican, not all 10 delegates for the Democrat.
If it were done this way, the Electoral College Vote would more accurately reflect the National Popular Vote.
Another benefit of this approach is everyone in every state can feel like their vote counts. The way it is now, if you reside in a majority red or blue state, and you like the other candidate, tough luck. The only people whose individual votes really count are those people located in a handful of swing states.
Or use the approach used by Maine & Nebraska. Allocate the 2 senate EC seats to the winner take all of the state. Use the house EC seats according to congressional district winner. A combination of democracy and republic. Public input and state input.
But why only do President using their argument? If they want the national mob rules for the federal government then let's do the House and Senate and SC by popular vote and only the leadership positions in the house, senate and SC will come from California or New York since they are the most populated states.
The Speaker of the House will be from California. The head of the Senate will be from California, most of the judges will be from California or New York. Only a few big states will control and have a monopoly in the federal government.
Why not trash the constitution and how the government is elected and start all over again with California controlling the federal government. We shouldn't have a national election, it would be a waste of time. Just pick the 8 biggest populated states and have them just pick the federal government for the rest of the nation.
Some people think with just their emotions and not really think it well of the consequences of what they want at the moment. It will create a big division and representation will be so 1 sided on a few states. Why should the other smaller states stay in the union?
You are quite a good example for why the popular vote method would be disastrous, and why our founding fathers embraced the EC to mitigate inevitable unfairness in popular voting. You see, lots of folks like you are totally convinced they make sense, when they make no sense at all.
The argument you make here about the EC nullifying votes would be not just more true under a popular vote method, but absolutely inevitable and unavoidable. With a popular vote system, 50.01% of the people would effectively nullify the votes of 49.99%
From a pure mathematical basis, one vote could theoretically nullify the votes of half the entire population. One lousy vote, from some low IQ imbecile could be the deciding factor. What a marvelous idea
Perhaps thats why Benjamin Franklin described democracy as two wolves and one sheep voting on whats for supper? There is an element of inevitability in such arrangements. The same could apply to two idiots and one genius deciding who holds high office.
The underlying sad truth is, we have many more …. shall I say … intellectually “less sophisticated” folks than we have intellectually exceptional ones, so any popular voting system would guarantee that the most important decisions would ultimately be made by the less intellectually qualified.
And this is why such a popular vote system would naturally appeal to the overlords and elitists …. since its infinitely easier to deceive dummies, than it is to hoodwink smart folks.
Everyone’s vote should count but it doesn’t. I live in a blue state and I don’t even need to vote because it makes no difference. That’s the same with red states. We don’t have a voice. Why do people need to vote at all
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.
