New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Compromise: Keep the Electoral College and get rid of winner take all in awarding electoral votes.

Spamature

President
Award electoral votes in proportion to how each voter in that state votes. This still allows voters in smaller states to protect their interest, and it makes every state something the candidate needs to fight for and allows each state to have it issues heard.

This way the conservative votes in blues states and the liberal votes in red states will now count.
 

Spamature

President
No. Why compromise on this when you stand virtually no chance of ending the electoral college?
I am not trying to end the EC. I have give reasons for ending winner take all awarding of EC votes. It what way does that sound disagreeable ? Why should conservative voters in non-conservative states have their votes in regard to the EC be hijacked by liberals ?
 

Spamature

President
But why do we need to compromise? Who are you to tell states how to award their electors?
Because we just went through an election and insurrection that could have been prevented by such a plan. We will have eliminated the all swing states. Any kind of conspiracy your side claimed went on would have meant nothing had both Biden and Trump gotten their share of the EC votes in the states Trump contested.

All of the swing states would have been a wash, split 50/50, because of how close they were.

I am me and I get to tell anybody I want, anything I want them to do. Who are you to challenge my right to do so ?
 

EatTheRich

President
Sounds like a better option but it doesn’t address the most objectionable aspect of the Electoral College ... the built-in advantage for small states relative to their power in the popular vote.
 

Spamature

President
Sounds like a better option but it doesn’t address the most objectionable aspect of the Electoral College ... the built-in advantage for small states relative to their power in the popular vote.
It does if either candidate can pull EC votes from every state, large or small. The only problem is if no one can get to 270 because of a 3rd party candidates taking votes from both. But that can be remedied by having to exceed a threshold in the vote in order to win any EC votes.
 
Last edited:

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Award electoral votes in proportion to how each voter in that state votes. This still allows voters in smaller states to protect their interest, and it makes every state something the candidate needs to fight for and allows each state to have it issues heard.

This way the conservative votes in blues states and the liberal votes in red states will now count.
It is an interesting concept. But here are my concerns.

What do yo you do with 2020 Georgia for example: There are 16 electoral votes; Biden got 49.5% and Trump got 49.3%. Jo Jorgensen of the libertarian party got 1.2%. Does she get an electoral vote? Also...in Washington State in 2016, Clinton got 54.4% of the popular vote, Trump got 38.2, Gary Johnson got 4.9%, Jill Stein got 1.7%.
If your goal is to give enfranchisement to the people...unless Johnson and Stein and Jorgensen are getting electoral votes...you're not doing it. Essentially my question is this: At what percentage threshold does someone get an electoral vote? And, more importantly, at what electoral threshold are you comfortable with one of the major party candidates getting a electoral vote that should have went to a third party?

Second concern: When you have 10 electoral votes and one candidate gets 60% of the popular vote and the other candidate gets 40%, that is easy; 6 electoral votes for one, and 4 electoral votes for the other. What happens if you have 11 electoral votes and they break 60/40? How do you divide up the 11th electoral college vote? Are we going to get into awarding half votes or quarter votes?

One thing I do like about your plan is that candidates just can't write off the states they won't win. Trump got more votes in California in 2020 than he did in many states that he won...over 6 million votes. The issue though is that when you say the small states keep their clout...do they? In California in 2020, Biden got 63.5% of the vote, Trump got 34.3%. Jorgensen got 1.1%. So, if I understand your plan, the 55 electoral votes would be awarded as follows: Biden would get 35 electoral votes and Trump would get 20 (I presume that you would say Jorgensen gets zilch). That 20 votes is more than Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Oklahoma combined. So whatever clout those states had..it's gone.

The vote totals are also questionable for small states vs. big states: Biden got 11M votes. Trump got 6M. So their total is 17M. As it stands (from above), the 11M equals 35 electoral college votes and the 6M equals 20 electoral college votes. If Trump would have campaigned there and had gotten, lets say, a modest 400,000 more votes (I'm rounding off a bit), he would have gotten another electoral college vote. And Biden would have lost one. Another 1.2M votes and that is equal to another state like Alaska or Maine. So I think you'd see less campaigning in the small states that are currently not competitive; not more.

But here's the big problem. The Democrats already do this in their primaries. There are very few winner-take-all states. What it does is empower the extremes. On Super Tuesday in 2008, here is how it broke down:

Clinton won:
AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN. She won CA, NJ, and NY. Pretty good night for her.

Obama won:
AK, AL, CT, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT. He won IL and a bunch of small states.

The final delegate count? 849-832...OBAMA! How did he come out ahead on the delegate count when she won more states? It was because the states she won, she didn't win by a blow out. Obama blew her away in some places. ID was 15-3...MN 48-24...GA 60-27. Meaning that in the general election, winning a state 50/50 is not as important as it is to win a state 90/10. You'll see dark red and dark blue states become more valuable to candidates because winning Pennsylvania no longer matters because your opponent is going to get almost as many votes as you do. So what type of message do you start using to win the dark red and dark blue states? The most partisan language you can come up with.

So I'm a pass on your plan.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Award electoral votes in proportion to how each voter in that state votes. This still allows voters in smaller states to protect their interest, and it makes every state something the candidate needs to fight for and allows each state to have it issues heard.

This way the conservative votes in blues states and the liberal votes in red states will now count.
Nothing is stopping states from doing that now. By all means get in out in front of that and start writing your state legislature. 6 million Trump voters in California demand that their votes actually count :)
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
It is an interesting concept. But here are my concerns.

What do yo you do with 2020 Georgia for example: There are 16 electoral votes; Biden got 49.5% and Trump got 49.3%. Jo Jorgensen of the libertarian party got 1.2%. Does she get an electoral vote? Also...in Washington State in 2016, Clinton got 54.4% of the popular vote, Trump got 38.2, Gary Johnson got 4.9%, Jill Stein got 1.7%.
If your goal is to give enfranchisement to the people...unless Johnson and Stein and Jorgensen are getting electoral votes...you're not doing it. Essentially my question is this: At what percentage threshold does someone get an electoral vote? And, more importantly, at what electoral threshold are you comfortable with one of the major party candidates getting a electoral vote that should have went to a third party?
The threshold could be what ever percentage of the vote it takes to get a candidate to one electoral, or you could include rank choice where voters choose a second candidate just in case their first choice does not get enough votes to meet the threshold.

Second concern: When you have 10 electoral votes and one candidate gets 60% of the popular vote and the other candidate gets 40%, that is easy; 6 electoral votes for one, and 4 electoral votes for the other. What happens if you have 11 electoral votes and they break 60/40? How do you divide up the 11th electoral college vote? Are we going to get into awarding half votes or quarter votes?
To the victor goes the spoils. 60/40 the extra goes to the candidate with the most at a discount of the winners left over percentage difference between the two.

One thing I do like about your plan is that candidates just can't write off the states they won't win. Trump got more votes in California in 2020 than he did in many states that he won...over 6 million votes. The issue though is that when you say the small states keep their clout...do they? In California in 2020, Biden got 63.5% of the vote, Trump got 34.3%. Jorgensen got 1.1%. So, if I understand your plan, the 55 electoral votes would be awarded as follows: Biden would get 35 electoral votes and Trump would get 20 (I presume that you would say Jorgensen gets zilch). That 20 votes is more than Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Oklahoma combined. So whatever clout those states had..it's gone.

The vote totals are also questionable for small states vs. big states: Biden got 11M votes. Trump got 6M. So their total is 17M. As it stands (from above), the 11M equals 35 electoral college votes and the 6M equals 20 electoral college votes. If Trump would have campaigned there and had gotten, lets say, a modest 400,000 more votes (I'm rounding off a bit), he would have gotten another electoral college vote. And Biden would have lost one. Another 1.2M votes and that is equal to another state like Alaska or Maine. So I think you'd see less campaigning in the small states that are currently not competitive; not more.
Since every state has at least 3 EC votes and few if any margins are so lopsided that they will result in the candidate not picking up at least one EC vote in small states. It puts all states into play because you would have to be above 80% to sweep a small state. Also, what you say in one state will be repeated by the media in all the other 49. So going extremist in one state for those votes could hurt you with votes in another.

But here's the big problem. The Democrats already do this in their primaries. There are very few winner-take-all states. What it does is empower the extremes. On Super Tuesday in 2008, here is how it broke down:



Clinton won:
AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN. She won CA, NJ, and NY. Pretty good night for her.

Obama won:
AK, AL, CT, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT. He won IL and a bunch of small states.

The final delegate count? 849-832...OBAMA! How did he come out ahead on the delegate count when she won more states? It was because the states she won, she didn't win by a blow out. Obama blew her away in some places. ID was 15-3...MN 48-24...GA 60-27. Meaning that in the general election, winning a state 50/50 is not as important as it is to win a state 90/10. You'll see dark red and dark blue states become more valuable to candidates because winning Pennsylvania no longer matters because your opponent is going to get almost as many votes as you do. So what type of message do you start using to win the dark red and dark blue states? The most partisan language you can come up with.

So I'm a pass on your plan.
While Obama did win more landslides than Clinton.

1611009800405.png

He also won more states and got more votes in total.

1611009890126.png

So you are against this because the candidate who got the most votes, won the most states, and had the greatest voter intensity behind them, won ?

Why shouldn't it be that way ?
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
Nothing is stopping states from doing that now. By all means get in out in front of that and start writing your state legislature. 6 million Trump voters in California demand that their votes actually count :)
So it's not happening already ?


Wow, you really added something important to the discussion.
 

Spamature

President
Too much arithmetic involved in your compromise.
Abolish the electoral college. It's past its use-by date.
It would be easier to get a compromise than a rewriting of the Constitution.

Plus the math is pretty simple and common since it is the math we use in every other election.
 

Spamature

President
Some states have already changed how they count electoral votes.....and that didn't need an amendment. See Nebraska.
Because they still use the EC. So there is no need to change that. But there might be some way to force the reporting of elections for certification by the congress that reflects the voters' true will in order to be accepted by for certification.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Award electoral votes in proportion to how each voter in that state votes. This still allows voters in smaller states to protect their interest, and it makes every state something the candidate needs to fight for and allows each state to have it issues heard.

This way the conservative votes in blues states and the liberal votes in red states will now count.
I prefer the Popular Vote project. Each state agrees to award all it's electors to the winner of the national popular vote. All votes count. All voters count equally.

The argument that small states vote for their interests is silly. Republican voters in Rhode Island are not voting for a different set of issues than republican voters in Kansas. Democrats in Texas are not voting for issues related to Texas alone....

The interests of each state are the responsibilities of the Senators and Representatives in Congress for that state....not the president. The math of the EC makes no sense and is even counter productive. How does it make sense to award 100% of the electors when only 55% of the registered voters even turn out and the winner only got 51% of that?
 
Because we just went through an election and insurrection that could have been prevented by such a plan. We will have eliminated the all swing states. Any kind of conspiracy your side claimed went on would have meant nothing had both Biden and Trump gotten their share of the EC votes in the states Trump contested.

All of the swing states would have been a wash, split 50/50, because of how close they were.

I am me and I get to tell anybody I want, anything I want them to do. Who are you to challenge my right to do so ?
You have the right to chase unicorns all you want. I think it's hilarious.

Now, what is your plan to force states to do things your way?
 
I prefer the Popular Vote project. Each state agrees to award all it's electors to the winner of the national popular vote. All votes count. All voters count equally.

The argument that small states vote for their interests is silly. Republican voters in Rhode Island are not voting for a different set of issues than republican voters in Kansas. Democrats in Texas are not voting for issues related to Texas alone....

The interests of each state are the responsibilities of the Senators and Representatives in Congress for that state....not the president. The math of the EC makes no sense and is even counter productive. How does it make sense to award 100% of the electors when only 55% of the registered voters even turn out and the winner only got 51% of that?
More unicorn chasing. Good luck.
 
Top