Electoral College
-
I like the bait CCC, but I would have waited for more fish to bite.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I live in WV. If the electoral college didn't exist, this state would get zero representation.
Neither would about 45 other states. Would be similar to eliminating the salary cap in baseball basketball or football.
But the New York Yankees would dig it.
WSS
Neither would about 45 other states. Would be similar to eliminating the salary cap in baseball basketball or football.
But the New York Yankees would dig it.
WSS
LA, SF, NYC would dictate who runs the country.
-
I like the bait CCC, but I would have waited for more fish to bite.
You not so cleva glasshoppel.
-
I like the bait CCC, but I would have waited for more fish to bite.
I fully expect that CCC smells like bait.
WSS
-
-
Magnificent bait and switch ccj. Truly.
-
Too bad we live in a Constitutional Republic.
Sorry I 'forgot' to credit the person who said that.
Sorry I 'forgot' to credit the person who said that.
Is there a way I can love and upvote this post like...I dunno....50 times? 100 msybe?
-
That's because The electoral college evens out the representation of the entire country and a Democracy mob rules. This is why we have a Constitutional Republic !
If we can keep it..............
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)
-
I'm coming down on the side of keeping the electoral college. Dems are just trying to ensure they win the next election without any forethought about this may actually bite them in the ass in the future.
I intensely dislike our 2 parties more and more with each passing year.
-
I thought this was where you applied for entry to become an electrician.?
-
Am I the o ly one intensely bothered by the fact both parties wanna change shit up to suit their current needs whenever they get a msjority... yet bitch and moan when the other side does it...?...
-
Am I the o ly one intensely bothered by the fact both parties wanna change shit up to suit their current needs whenever they get a msjority... yet bitch and moan when the other side does it...?...
Am I the o ly one intensely bothered by the fact both parties wanna change shit up to suit their current needs whenever they get a msjority... yet bitch and moan when the other side does it...?...
No, you're not the only one.
Another prime example of this stupidity is Colorado changing how their electoral votes are doled out in presidential elections.
The Colorado State legislature just passed a law in which their electoral votes will go to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thinking that this will somehow prevent a repeat of what happened in 2016.
But, once you stop to think about it, it's actually a pretty stupid idea. Colorado votes mostly blue, so that means that even if the majority of the state votes for a Democratic candidate, if the national popular vote is won by a Republican, all of Colorado's electoral votes will go to the Republican. They've basically written voter disenfranchisement into their own law.
-
Am I the o ly one intensely bothered by the fact both parties wanna change shit up to suit their current needs whenever they get a msjority... yet bitch and moan when the other side does it...?...
No, you're not the only one.
Another prime example of this stupidity is Colorado changing how their electoral votes are doled out in presidential elections.
The Colorado State legislature just passed a law in which their electoral votes will go to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thinking that this will somehow prevent a repeat of what happened in 2016.
But, once you stop to think about it, it's actually a pretty stupid idea. Colorado votes mostly blue, so that means that even if the majority of the state votes for a Democratic candidate, if the national popular vote is won by a Republican, all of Colorado's electoral votes will go to the Republican. They've basically written voter disenfranchisement into their own law.
No, you're not the only one.
Another prime example of this stupidity is Colorado changing how their electoral votes are doled out in presidential elections.
The Colorado State legislature just passed a law in which their electoral votes will go to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thinking that this will somehow prevent a repeat of what happened in 2016.
But, once you stop to think about it, it's actually a pretty stupid idea. Colorado votes mostly blue, so that means that even if the majority of the state votes for a Democratic candidate, if the national popular vote is won by a Republican, all of Colorado's electoral votes will go to the Republican. They've basically written voter disenfranchisement into their own law.
Omfg the stupidity
-
While I agree that getting rid of the Electoral College altogether is a bad idea, I think there is an argument to be made that it needs improving to better reflect the vote of the American people.
As it stands right now, electoral votes in most states are awarded in a "winner take all" system, in which the candidate with the most popular votes in that state are awarded that state's total allotment of electoral votes. For example, here in Ohio, Trump won 52 percent of the popular vote, so all 18 electoral votes were awarded to him. Naturally, this system gives rise to several issues. States with a greater number of electoral votes are visited more by candidates and have more campaign financing (stumping, tv and radio ads, etc) spent in them than in states with a smaller number of electoral votes. This leads to most candidates visiting and campaigning in only a handful of states every election cycle. I believe that they should have to campaign in as many states as possible.
One solution is to modify the Electoral College system into a proportional one. That is, instead of being awarded the entirety of a particular state's electoral votes in a "winner take all" system, the total number of electoral votes in a particular state are awarded to candidates proportionally based on the percentage of that state's popular vote that they won. I'll use two examples:
In our own state of Ohio, we have 18 total electoral votes. If we were to apply the proportional electoral college system to our votes, it would look something like this:
- Donald Trump: 18 total electoral votes x 52.1% popular vote = 9 electoral votes awarded
- Hillary Clinton: 18 electoral votes x 43.5% popular vote = 8 electoral votes awarded
- Gary Johnson: 18 electoral votes x 3.2% popular vote = 1 electoral vote awarded
In this scenario, Donald Trump would still win most of Ohio's electoral votes since he won the highest percentage of Ohio's popular vote, but Clinton would also gain some of Ohio electoral votes since she had a high percentage of the popular vote as well. It also awards an electoral vote to Gary Johnson, allowing representation of 3rd party voters and potentially opening the door for further growth of 3rd party influence in later elections. It also takes into account that since Jill Stein and Duncan were not awarded an electoral vote since they did not meet a minimum threshold of the popular vote.
We can also apply the proportional system to so called stronghold states as well:
California is the state with the greatest amount of total electoral votes, 55, meaning that it technically should be one of most hotly contested states in an election. However, since California is a "winner take all state", and since it is overwhelmingly Democratic, most Republican and 3rd party candidates don't campaign that much in the state since they know that, more than likely, the state will vote Democrat anyway. This, in my opinion, disenfranchises the significant minority of voters who don't vote Democrat. However, if we were to apply a proportional electoral college system to their votes, it would look something like this:
- Hillary Clinton: 55 total electoral votes x 61.6% popular vote = 34 electoral votes awarded
- Donald Trump: 55 total electoral votes x 32.8% popular vote = 18 electoral votes awarded
- Gary Johnson: 55 total electoral votes x 3.4% popular vote = 2 electoral votes awarded
- Jill Stein: 55 total electoral votes x 1.8% popular vote = 1 electoral vote awarded
In this scenario, Clinton would still win a hefty amount of California electoral votes with 34, but Trump would also walk away with 18 - the same number of total electoral votes he won in Ohio in 2016. This system would allow California to award the majority of its electoral votes to Clinton - representing the majority of California's voters voting Democrat, while also awarding electoral votes to Republican and 3rd party candidates representative of the 38% of California voters who did not vote Democrat.
In my opinion, this proportional Electoral College system - or one similar to it - is the best system moving forward in voting for President. It allows for a better reflection of the overall popular vote in an election's results while preserving the protections that the current Electoral College system has in preventing a small handful of cities with large populations from dominating the election of the president.
Just my $0.02 on the matter...
-
While I agree that getting rid of the Electoral College altogether is a bad idea, I think there is an argument to be made that it needs improving to better reflect the vote of the American people.
As it stands right now, electoral votes in most states are awarded in a "winner take all" system, in which the candidate with the most popular votes in that state are awarded that state's total allotment of electoral votes. For example, here in Ohio, Trump won 52 percent of the popular vote, so all 18 electoral votes were awarded to him. Naturally, this system gives rise to several issues. States with a greater number of electoral votes are visited more by candidates and have more campaign financing (stumping, tv and radio ads, etc) spent in them than in states with a smaller number of electoral votes. This leads to most candidates visiting and campaigning in only a handful of states every election cycle. I believe that they should have to campaign in as many states as possible.
One solution is to modify the Electoral College system into a proportional one. That is, instead of being awarded the entirety of a particular state's electoral votes in a "winner take all" system, the total number of electoral votes in a particular state are awarded to candidates proportionally based on the percentage of that state's popular vote that they won. I'll use two examples:
In our own state of Ohio, we have 18 total electoral votes. If we were to apply the proportional electoral college system to our votes, it would look something like this:
- Donald Trump: 18 total electoral votes x 52.1% popular vote = 9 electoral votes awarded
- Hillary Clinton: 18 electoral votes x 43.5% popular vote = 8 electoral votes awarded
- Gary Johnson: 18 electoral votes x 3.2% popular vote = 1 electoral vote awarded
In this scenario, Donald Trump would still win most of Ohio's electoral votes since he won the highest percentage of Ohio's popular vote, but Clinton would also gain some of Ohio electoral votes since she had a high percentage of the popular vote as well. It also awards an electoral vote to Gary Johnson, allowing representation of 3rd party voters and potentially opening the door for further growth of 3rd party influence in later elections. It also takes into account that since Jill Stein and Duncan were not awarded an electoral vote since they did not meet a minimum threshold of the popular vote.
We can also apply the proportional system to so called stronghold states as well:
California is the state with the greatest amount of total electoral votes, 55, meaning that it technically should be one of most hotly contested states in an election. However, since California is a "winner take all state", and since it is overwhelmingly Democratic, most Republican and 3rd party candidates don't campaign that much in the state since they know that, more than likely, the state will vote Democrat anyway. This, in my opinion, disenfranchises the significant minority of voters who don't vote Democrat. However, if we were to apply a proportional electoral college system to their votes, it would look something like this:
- Hillary Clinton: 55 total electoral votes x 61.6% popular vote = 34 electoral votes awarded
- Donald Trump: 55 total electoral votes x 32.8% popular vote = 18 electoral votes awarded
- Gary Johnson: 55 total electoral votes x 3.4% popular vote = 2 electoral votes awarded
- Jill Stein: 55 total electoral votes x 1.8% popular vote = 1 electoral vote awarded
In this scenario, Clinton would still win a hefty amount of California electoral votes with 34, but Trump would also walk away with 18 - the same number of total electoral votes he won in Ohio in 2016. This system would allow California to award the majority of its electoral votes to Clinton - representing the majority of California's voters voting Democrat, while also awarding electoral votes to Republican and 3rd party candidates representative of the 38% of California voters who did not vote Democrat.
In my opinion, this proportional Electoral College system - or one similar to it - is the best system moving forward in voting for President. It allows for a better reflection of the overall popular vote in an election's results while preserving the protections that the current Electoral College system has in preventing a small handful of cities with large populations from dominating the election of the president.
Just my $0.02 on the matter...
Just my $0.02 on the matter...
That idea does have a lot of merit - but I don't agree, offhand. Proportional electoral votes applied, means the election results in any state can be affected by a deliberate mass illegal migration that we see today. Voter fraud would far more easily be rewarded. As it is, voter fraud doesn't gain the ...dems... anything unless there was a monumental amount of voter fraud.
Otherwise, a little voter fraud could result in a little reward of reps. I think. Just my two cents.
I don't see any republicans wanting to change our Constitution. It's the left.
The left wants to change the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court to benefit them after they change it when they have a socialist president. The dems want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, and have little use for the 1st Amendment, unless it's THEM that demand it.
Obamao commie criticized our Constution. Libs all over get mad because it doesn't suit their demands.
Too freaking bad, says I.
The left would have there be no freedom of speech - unless they dictate it. That isn't freedom of speech - that's very much like british colonial tyranny.
-
Thanks jbluhm86. It's odd to see a good post on this board. This approach makes the most sense to me. I think Maine already does this. I would like to see the Ranked voting as well. It the only way we can get away from this two-party system. People would start voting for individuals instead for/against parties.
https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/ranked-ballot-voting.aspx
-
I agree completely jbluhm. I don't like the winner take all system currently in place.
-
Just my $0.02 on the matter...
That idea does have a lot of merit - but I don't agree, offhand. Proportional electoral votes applied, means the election results in any state can be affected by a deliberate mass illegal migration that we see today. Voter fraud would far more easily be rewarded. As it is, voter fraud doesn't gain the ...dems... anything unless there was a monumental amount of voter fraud.
Otherwise, a little voter fraud could result in a little reward of reps. I think. Just my two cents.
I don't see any republicans wanting to change our Constitution. It's the left.
The left wants to change the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court to benefit them after they change it when they have a socialist president. The dems want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, and have little use for the 1st Amendment, unless it's THEM that demand it.
Obamao commie criticized our Constution. Libs all over get mad because it doesn't suit their demands.
Too freaking bad, says I.
The left would have there be no freedom of speech - unless they dictate it. That isn't freedom of speech - that's very much like british colonial tyranny.
That idea does have a lot of merit - but I don't agree, offhand. Proportional electoral votes applied, means the election results in any state can be affected by a deliberate mass illegal migration that we see today. Voter fraud would far more easily be rewarded. As it is, voter fraud doesn't gain the ...dems... anything unless there was a monumental amount of voter fraud.
Otherwise, a little voter fraud could result in a little reward of reps. I think. Just my two cents.
I don't see any republicans wanting to change our Constitution. It's the left.
not at all. Ask yourself who is it that wants to repeal the Second Amendment?
The left wants to change the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court to benefit them after they change it when they have a socialist president. The dems want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, and have little use for the 1st Amendment, unless it's THEM that demand it.
Obamao commie criticized our Constution. Libs all over get mad because it doesn't suit their demands.
Too freaking bad, says I.
The left would have there be no freedom of speech - unless they dictate it. That isn't freedom of speech - that's very much like british colonial tyranny.
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