A good breakdown of the Electoral College
-
-
On the other hand it's the same deal in New York and California Massachusetts Etc. They already have and enormous Electro advantage.
I know some people would like to erase state lines altogether.
WSS
-
On the other hand it's the same deal in New York and California Massachusetts Etc. They already have and enormous Electro advantage.
I know some people would like to erase state lines altogether.
WSS
On the other hand it's the same deal in New York and California Massachusetts Etc. They already have and enormous Electro advantage.
I know some people would like to erase state lines altogether.
WSS
Technically, Ohio has more electoral votes (18) than Massachusetts (11), but I understand the point you're making. I'm actually in favor of keeping an Electoral College, because it helps to equalize the power between the larger and smaller states. The EC isn't bad, in my opinion, it's just functionality obsolete in its l current form.
As mentioned in the video above, the idea of a "winner take all system" is foolish because it disenfranchises large swaths of the American electorate. In California, for example, it's almost pointless for Republicans to vote because Democrat voters outnumber them to such a degree that pretty much every presidential election goes for the Democratic candidate in California; vice versa for Democrats in heavily red states. Plus, presidential candidates currently only have to campaign in maybe a dozen states, because those states carry the most electoral votes.
That is why I'm in favour of a proportional electoral college system, in which each state's electoral votes are divided up based upon the proportion of votes in each state. That way, even if a Democratic candidate still carries most of the electoral votes in states like California or New York, Republicans and third party candidates can still get electoral votes in those states, and it'll be a better representation of the American electorate.
The idea I support is a modified proportional vote system, in which the candidate who wins the most votes in a given state is automatically awarded a guaranteed number of electors (2, for example; just like each state gets 2 US senators), and the rest of the votes are awarded among the top two or three candidates proportional to the amount of total votes they received in that state.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
I guess there are two ways of looking at it. Is it outdated because technology has come to the point we don't need the EC don't really need a republic for that matter everybody can vote from their smartphone I suppose. Or is it outdated because some in government particularly in political parties want to erase the entire concept of 50 independent states? To be honest the first time that pissed me off was under my boy Ronald Reagan when some states decided they wanted to stay at 18 years old for booze and the federal government strong armed them all into Goin 21.
WSS
-
On the other hand it's the same deal in New York and California Massachusetts Etc. They already have and enormous Electro advantage.
I know some people would like to erase state lines altogether.
WSS
Technically, Ohio has more electoral votes (18) than Massachusetts (11), but I understand the point you're making. I'm actually in favor of keeping an Electoral College, because it helps to equalize the power between the larger and smaller states. The EC isn't bad, in my opinion, it's just functionality obsolete in its l current form.
As mentioned in the video above, the idea of a "winner take all system" is foolish because it disenfranchises large swaths of the American electorate. In California, for example, it's almost pointless for Republicans to vote because Democrat voters outnumber them to such a degree that pretty much every presidential election goes for the Democratic candidate in California; vice versa for Democrats in heavily red states. Plus, presidential candidates currently only have to campaign in maybe a dozen states, because those states carry the most electoral votes.
That is why I'm in favour of a proportional electoral college system, in which each state's electoral votes are divided up based upon the proportion of votes in each state. That way, even if a Democratic candidate still carries most of the electoral votes in states like California or New York, Republicans and third party candidates can still get electoral votes in those states, and it'll be a better representation of the American electorate.
The idea I support is a modified proportional vote system, in which the candidate who wins the most votes in a given state is automatically awarded a guaranteed number of electors (2, for example; just like each state gets 2 US senators), and the rest of the votes are awarded among the top two or three candidates proportional to the amount of total votes they received in that state.
Technically, Ohio has more electoral votes (18) than Massachusetts (11), but I understand the point you're making. I'm actually in favor of keeping an Electoral College, because it helps to equalize the power between the larger and smaller states. The EC isn't bad, in my opinion, it's just functionality obsolete in its l current form.
As mentioned in the video above, the idea of a "winner take all system" is foolish because it disenfranchises large swaths of the American electorate. In California, for example, it's almost pointless for Republicans to vote because Democrat voters outnumber them to such a degree that pretty much every presidential election goes for the Democratic candidate in California; vice versa for Democrats in heavily red states. Plus, presidential candidates currently only have to campaign in maybe a dozen states, because those states carry the most electoral votes.
That is why I'm in favour of a proportional electoral college system, in which each state's electoral votes are divided up based upon the proportion of votes in each state. That way, even if a Democratic candidate still carries most of the electoral votes in states like California or New York, Republicans and third party candidates can still get electoral votes in those states, and it'll be a better representation of the American electorate.
The idea I support is a modified proportional vote system, in which the candidate who wins the most votes in a given state is automatically awarded a guaranteed number of electors (2, for example; just like each state gets 2 US senators), and the rest of the votes are awarded among the top two or three candidates proportional to the amount of total votes they received in that state.
I do get what you're saying between California and New York- Biden is going to get spotted 84 electoral votes right off the bat....
-
Technically, Ohio has more electoral votes (18) than Massachusetts (11), but I understand the point you're making. I'm actually in favor of keeping an Electoral College, because it helps to equalize the power between the larger and smaller states. The EC isn't bad, in my opinion, it's just functionality obsolete in its l current form.
As mentioned in the video above, the idea of a "winner take all system" is foolish because it disenfranchises large swaths of the American electorate. In California, for example, it's almost pointless for Republicans to vote because Democrat voters outnumber them to such a degree that pretty much every presidential election goes for the Democratic candidate in California; vice versa for Democrats in heavily red states. Plus, presidential candidates currently only have to campaign in maybe a dozen states, because those states carry the most electoral votes.
That is why I'm in favour of a proportional electoral college system, in which each state's electoral votes are divided up based upon the proportion of votes in each state. That way, even if a Democratic candidate still carries most of the electoral votes in states like California or New York, Republicans and third party candidates can still get electoral votes in those states, and it'll be a better representation of the American electorate.
The idea I support is a modified proportional vote system, in which the candidate who wins the most votes in a given state is automatically awarded a guaranteed number of electors (2, for example; just like each state gets 2 US senators), and the rest of the votes are awarded among the top two or three candidates proportional to the amount of total votes they received in that state.
I do get what you're saying between California and New York- Biden is going to get spotted 84 electoral votes right off the bat....
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