Omerta+ 1,206 Posted October 8, 2018 I think the electoral college still has functionality personally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, Omerta said: I think the electoral college still has functionality personally. It's function is to make certain people's votes count more than others so if that's your bag, then yeah I suppose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted October 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, blotsfan said: It's function is to make certain people's votes count more than others so if that's your bag, then yeah I suppose. I mean that's one take for sure, but the other take is that you prevent politicians from serving Regional interests of Big state's such as New York, California, Texas, and a few others. It was designed so that you could not win an election off of four states, or the most populous states in the future. Which I think is a good idea. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sarge+ 3,436 Posted October 8, 2018 53 minutes ago, blotsfan said: Ranked choice and the popular vote aren't mutually exclusive. I didn't mean to imply that they are. What I was trying to say was that just popular vote alone isn't enough or the best choice. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted October 8, 2018 44 minutes ago, blotsfan said: It's function is to make certain people's votes count more than others so if that's your bag, then yeah I suppose. I mean, you do realize that if you do away with it without some kind of replacement that you are doing the same thing... Over half of the population of this country falls in 9 states. For reference... there are 50 states. If you are legit worried about the electoral college and your solution is to give all the power to the north east, florida, texas, and California.... Your intentions are not righteous or morally sound. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 8, 2018 Trump got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 8, 2018 47 minutes ago, Sarge said: I didn't mean to imply that they are. What I was trying to say was that just popular vote alone isn't enough or the best choice. I agree. But don't be let perfect be the enemy of better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sarge+ 3,436 Posted October 8, 2018 May we forever chase perfection, knowing that we will likely fail to attain it, but that in the pursuit we will achieve greatness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted October 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, Sarge said: May we forever chase perfection, knowing that we will likely fail to attain it, but that in the pursuit we will achieve greatness. That is funny you say that, because that was the exact quote in The Federalist Papers that pertains to the Electoral college since its Inception. If it cannot be perfect, then let it be excellent. I believe that is the quote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted October 8, 2018 23 minutes ago, blotsfan said: Trump got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama. Okay, what exactly does that prove? I mean other than you got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 8, 2018 15 minutes ago, Omerta said: That is funny you say that, because that was the exact quote in The Federalist Papers that pertains to the Electoral college since its Inception. If it cannot be perfect, then let it be excellent. I believe that is the quote. Yeah, and their thought was that more informed electors would override the peoples' vote. I think we've demonstrably proven that will never happen outside of of or two meaningless protests. 14 minutes ago, Omerta said: Okay, what exactly does that prove? I mean other than you got more votes in Massachusetts than Alabama. It means that it doesn't mean that those states would simply decide everything since it would count people that vote the opposite way of their neighbors everywhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, blotsfan said: Yeah, and their thought was that more informed electors would override the peoples' vote. I think we've demonstrably proven that will never happen outside of of or two meaningless protests. It means that it doesn't mean that those states would simply decide everything since it would count people that vote the opposite way of their neighbors everywhere. it does though, because if you have a candidate who's willing to just play Regional politics and make life nice for those people in three or four states, there's literally no more checks and balances against that. So really a candidate could come along and make life really nice at the expense of the rest of the country, just to get elected president. that doesn't even take into account the fact that less populated areas have to be that way, because Farms have to be somewhere, and I seriously doubt if the next agricultural neck is going to happen in downtown Manhattan. There is a reason even though states have electoral votes, and that's because those states are arguably more vital to our economy and our survival in the more populated states. You can't discount the needs of people in that state to appease those of a state with a larger population, if you do that we're looking at disaster. the Electoral College ensures that the president appeals to the broadest base of the country. Edited October 8, 2018 by Omerta Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted October 8, 2018 The problem with Ngata's point is that what he is describing already happens, since politicans court the votes of swing states and ignore those that are deep blue or deep red. Electoral college needs to go, but Sarge is also correct, we need ranked choice voting as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteVo+ 3,702 Posted October 8, 2018 What's so bad about giving states like California and Texas more electoral power? Why should we care so deeply about enhancing voting power of states where nobody lives? Also the Electoral College isn't forcing politicians to campaign in small states. They will focus the brunt of their campaigning, as usual, in high-population states where the polls are close, the so-called battleground states. The alternative vote for presidents would be great, but it's even more crucial that we stop gerrymandering and get mixed-member representation in Congress. Neither of these things will ever happen though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) California and Texas already have "more electoral power". They have the largest impact on who wins the election by a large margin. California alone owns 21% of the electoral college / votes. Winning California, one state, means you are 1/5 of the way to being President. Edited October 8, 2018 by DalaiLama4Ever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteVo+ 3,702 Posted October 8, 2018 1/5 toward being President, yes, but 21% of the electoral votes? Not entirely. Out of the 538 electoral votes, California's 55 is 10.2%, which doesn't sound too bad considering California contains approximately 12.1% of the country's population. So (and I'm genuinely asking here), should each state's electoral representation match its percent of population as closely as possible? It's also worth pointing out that this is mostly a hot talking point right now because liberals are salty of all the rural states that can get 2 Republican senators fairly easily. And it's not a totally invalid point. The Senate has some pretty serious imbalance with regard to population...but then again, wasn't that the point of the Senate? To give each state equal representation no matter what? There's a lot to unpack here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) I don't think that's the heart of the issue. Considering the largest state in the country has less than a 2% difference between their population and electorate power. The bigger problem in my mind is that 48 of our states are "all or nothing". Theoretically, if Stevo and I are running for President -- Stevo can beat me in California 51 - 49 and he gets all 55 votes from California. Conversely, I could beat Stevo in Texas 50 - 50 (by a single vote) and take all 34 of their votes. EDIT: Nebraska and Maine. Each state gives 2 votes to the winner of the popular vote, than an extra vote for each winner of the individual congressional districts. Not saying we all should even do that. Could just lead to even more gerrymandering. Could make it a straight percentage though. If you win 55% of the vote, you get 55% of the electoral votes or some such system. Edited October 8, 2018 by DalaiLama4Ever 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RazorStar 4,025 Posted October 8, 2018 Representation by population helps, and ranked choice voting in addition to that would almost certainly solve a lot of issues with the system. That and making any election day a mandatory holiday so most people don't need to leave work to vote. But that's in a democracy, and America has never been a democracy, and it never will be if trends continue. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteVo+ 3,702 Posted October 9, 2018 Love the idea of assigning a state's electoral votes proportionally to percentage of votes, F4E. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 9, 2018 Or maybe give each state a say exactly proportional to the number of people that vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted October 9, 2018 I think the craziest aspect of the electoral system is the possible juxtapositions. Hillary received 3 million more votes and yet Trump won the election fairly convincingly. It wasn't a landslide (like his win in 2020 will be unless the Dems provide a great candidate) but it was convincingly. That alone should raise eyebrows. The system is broken, not obsolete. Let's fix it, not scrap it. I agree with JD. Electoral votes based on percentage in each state. Round up to the winner, though. No scale where you round down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RazorStar 4,025 Posted October 9, 2018 https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/ Here are some of the various systems they could play around with. I'm a bigger fan of the Proportional Popular vote, where each state awards 2 EC votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state, and the remainder is split up by the proportion of the popular vote. So Trump would still win because he took all those Rust Belt states, but it'd be closer to equivalency of what the actual vote was, and more peoples votes matter, rather than having a Democrat in Texas count for nothing, and vice versa for a Republican in California. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 9, 2018 Also, just to point out the house (and not therefore electoral college votes) was supposed to grow a state the population did, but then they just decided to cap it at the level set in 1910 (US Population 92 million) for no real good reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 9, 2018 Nikki Haley just resigned. Huh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted October 9, 2018 What is the practical difference between electoral college votes based on % of vote gotten, and just simply using the popular vote? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites