<![CDATA[ELECTORAL COLLEGE]]>The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote

eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/45267/electoral-collegeRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 11:59:05 GMTWed, 28 Dec 2016 00:51:46 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:48:44 GMT]]>

@mld-woody said:

Who said that?

Hillary

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667842https://brownsboard.com/post/667842Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:48:44 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:27:38 GMT]]>

@erie-dawg said:

I didn't get a participation trophy but since we lost I think we need to change the rules.

Who said that?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667813https://brownsboard.com/post/667813Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:27:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sun, 01 Jan 2017 17:35:49 GMT]]>I didn't get a participation trophy but since we lost I think we need to change the rules.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667741https://brownsboard.com/post/667741Sun, 01 Jan 2017 17:35:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:30:45 GMT]]>

@mld-woody said:

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

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667495https://brownsboard.com/post/667495Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:30:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:28:25 GMT]]>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

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667494https://brownsboard.com/post/667494Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:28:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:16:32 GMT]]>

@mld-woody said:

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

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667492https://brownsboard.com/post/667492Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:16:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:10:51 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

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.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667489https://brownsboard.com/post/667489Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:10:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:32:31 GMT]]>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

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667465https://brownsboard.com/post/667465Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:32:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:14:08 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

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.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667464https://brownsboard.com/post/667464Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:14:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:11:58 GMT]]> 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

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667412https://brownsboard.com/post/667412Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:11:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:03:48 GMT]]>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.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667410https://brownsboard.com/post/667410Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:03:48 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:35:39 GMT]]>

@mld-woody said:

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.

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667379https://brownsboard.com/post/667379Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:35:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:32:35 GMT]]>15825933_10158386065000725_3870962094877

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667366https://brownsboard.com/post/667366Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:32:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 17:23:33 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?

WSS

Basically, ya.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667099https://brownsboard.com/post/667099Fri, 30 Dec 2016 17:23:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:47:51 GMT]]>So Woody, all you are doing is eliminating the winner-take-all system of the 48 states that employ it?

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/667008https://brownsboard.com/post/667008Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:47:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 05:46:54 GMT]]>I have never once dissed the electoral college, win or lose. and two clinton and obamao terms were losses.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666986https://brownsboard.com/post/666986Fri, 30 Dec 2016 05:46:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 05:41:14 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

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.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666985https://brownsboard.com/post/666985Fri, 30 Dec 2016 05:41:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 04:25:07 GMT]]>

@bbedward said:

Whoever wins the electoral college loves the electoral college.

Yup

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666981https://brownsboard.com/post/666981Fri, 30 Dec 2016 04:25:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:46:12 GMT]]>

@mld-woody said:

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

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666978https://brownsboard.com/post/666978Fri, 30 Dec 2016 03:46:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 02:17:39 GMT]]>

@westside-steve said:

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

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666969https://brownsboard.com/post/666969Fri, 30 Dec 2016 02:17:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:00:36 GMT]]>Whoever wins the electoral college loves the electoral college.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666927https://brownsboard.com/post/666927Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:00:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 20:38:39 GMT]]>So, Woody, if it were up to you would the election be a straight popular vote?

WSS

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666918https://brownsboard.com/post/666918Thu, 29 Dec 2016 20:38:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:17:27 GMT]]>If it's a discussion of what should theoretically happen, and what would be the best case scenario. That discussion. Saying "well you won't get the votes" adds nothing.

I get what you attempted to do, but this doesn't compare to the religion discussion. Here we're saying even if it can never happen, what would be best. Unless you want to preface your Bible discussion with "I know this could never happen, but..."

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666844https://brownsboard.com/post/666844Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:17:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ELECTORAL COLLEGE on Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:04 GMT]]>

@mld-woody said:

I think it's a good idea. But you'll just get some combination of

"Stupid liberal!"

"We can't ever change the Constitution!"

"You'll never get the votes!"

Skeptics Realists.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/666799https://brownsboard.com/post/666799Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:02:04 GMT