ELECTORAL COLLEGE
-
Whoever wins the electoral college loves the electoral college.
-
So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?
WSS
So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?
WSS
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
-
So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?
WSS
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
Electoral votes are distributed by population.
So if they were equally portioned with no winner take all states the election would be primarily by population right?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Whoever wins the electoral college loves the electoral college.
Yup
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082
-
No. As I've said in every past thread I think the electoral votes per state should be divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state.
If a state has 20 electoral votes, and you get 50% of the vote there, you get 10 electoral votes. This seems like the middle ground between what we have now and a pure popular vote from a statistical standpoint
Electoral votes are distributed by population.
So if they were equally portioned with no winner take all states the election would be primarily by population right?
WSS
Electoral votes are distributed by population.
So if they were equally portioned with no winner take all states the election would be primarily by population right?
WSS
Not entirely. Each state has a base value of votes from the Senate. That makes smaller states worth more than their percentage of the population.
It would be more popular vote based than it is now, but not be entirely popular vote. There'd also be no "locks". A Rep could campaign in Cali and walk away with something.
-
I have never once dissed the electoral college, win or lose. and two clinton and obamao terms were losses.
-
So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?
WSS
-
So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?
WSS
So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?
WSS
Basically, ya.
-
-
So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?
WSS
Basically, ya.
Well there is certainly an argument to be made for that. The popular vote is the popular vote but I still don't like the idea of three or four extremely liberal areas controlling the rest of the country. I guess if we were not a conglomeration of semi-autonomous states or if I were in League with those three or four bastions of thought Id probably think differently.Basically, ya.
WSS
-
Again, what I'm suggesting would mean those large liberal cities would just get part of the state's vote, not the whole thing.
Even though it still does suck that your vote counts for more if you live somewhere rural.
-
like I said there's a case to be made. But it does mean that whatever importance the individual states have today will be basically gone.
At that point there would be no reason to pay any attention to North or South Dakota Wyoming etcetera and just concentrate on the inner cities.
WSS
-
like I said there's a case to be made. But it does mean that whatever importance the individual states have today will be basically gone.
At that point there would be no reason to pay any attention to North or South Dakota Wyoming etcetera and just concentrate on the inner cities.
WSS
like I said there's a case to be made. But it does mean that whatever importance the individual states have today will be basically gone.
At that point there would be no reason to pay any attention to North or South Dakota Wyoming etcetera and just concentrate on the inner cities.
WSS
That would be true if it were purely popular vote, which it's not. Again, this system still gives small states more vote than they're working h by population
Plus no one gives a shit about North or South Dakota now.
Plus this would make it so candidates would campaign in states that would normally be locks for the other party.
-
But like you said if the electoral votes were exactly correlated to population and there were no more winner-take-all States it would be a defacto popular vote.
WSS
-
But like you said if the electoral votes were exactly correlated to population and there were no more winner-take-all States it would be a defacto popular vote.
WSS
But like you said if the electoral votes were exactly correlated to population and there were no more winner-take-all States it would be a defacto popular vote.
WSS
Except its not a country wide popular vote and someone's vote in a small state is still worth more. This is because every state gets the +2 in votes from the Senate.
-
But like you said if the electoral votes were exactly correlated to population and there were no more winner-take-all States it would be a defacto popular vote.
WSS
Except its not a country wide popular vote and someone's vote in a small state is still worth more. This is because every state gets the +2 in votes from the Senate.
Except its not a country wide popular vote and someone's vote in a small state is still worth more. This is because every state gets the +2 in votes from the Senate.
I was under the impression that your system assigns electoral votes based on population.
WSS
-
No, each state is worth the same votes they are now. that vote is then just divided up by the popular vote in that state.
It's a mix between what we have now and a pure popular vote
-
No, each state is worth the same votes they are now. that vote is then just divided up by the popular vote in that state.
It's a mix between what we have now and a pure popular vote
No, each state is worth the same votes they are now. that vote is then just divided up by the popular vote in that state.
It's a mix between what we have now and a pure popular vote
Ok I misunderstood.
WSS
-
I didn't get a participation trophy but since we lost I think we need to change the rules.
-
I didn't get a participation trophy but since we lost I think we need to change the rules.
I didn't get a participation trophy but since we lost I think we need to change the rules.
Who said that?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login