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.

middleview

President
Supporting Member
On the list of things in this world that need changing, I would put this pretty low.

In fact, I cannot honestly say that I have heard one really convincing argument in favor of changing it all....The present system seems to work remarkably well.
Republicans have won the popular vote one time since 1990...that is exactly why you see no reason to change it.
 

Spamature

President
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the other points...

The one above though, I can demonstrate mathematically why I think you're wrong. Read it with an open mind:

The population of Idaho is 1,780,000. The largest city is Boise with 250,000 give or take.
The population of California is 39,000,000. Twenty-Three million live in SOCAL.

Idaho has 4 electoral votes.
In 2020 it was 64/33 Trump. Using your calculation, Trump would get 2/3 of the electoral votes which, I guess, rounds up to 3. Biden would get 1.
The voting was as follows: 554,000 votes for Trump to 287,000 votes for Biden. So about 830,000 voted out of the 1,040,000 registered voters or 81% or so.
For Biden to get that 2nd electoral vote, he'd have to either get all of the 19% who didn't vote or campaign hard to get two hundred to four hundred thousand that voted for Trump to swing over to him. That means campaign stops, radio, TV, print....

California has 55 electoral votes.
In 2020 it was 64/33 Biden. Using your calculation, Biden would get 2/3 of the electoral votes which, I guess, rounds up to 38. Trump would get 17
The voting was as follows; 11,110,000 votes for Biden to 6,000,000 votes for Trump. So about 17,000,000 voted out of the 22,000,000 registered voters or 80% or so.
For Trump to get the 18th electoral vote, he'd have to either get some of the 20% who didn't vote or campaign to get four hundred thousand of those that voted for Biden to swing over to him. That means campaign stops, radio, TV, print....

The difference is this:

Each electoral vote is about 400,000-450,000 voters.

In Idaho, there are only 200K who didn't vote so you have to cut into the other guy's tally. In California, there are 5M who didn't vote. You don't have to really cut into the other guys' tally. Although the net result of more campaigning, TV ads, radio, print would be that you would cut into the other guy's tally somewhat. But it's easier to get people who are not in the other camp than it is to get people who are in no camp.
Also, there is the multiplier effect that a 30 second ad on TV in Boise reaches about 18,000 people or so. A Thirty second ad in Orange County reaches hundreds of thousands of people in and around the OC.

Also...where would you rather have a fundraiser? Beverly Hills or Boise?

Your assertion that if you just open it up there would be candidates flying into Fargo to get after a single electoral vote is unrealistic.

Of course, what the other question that presents itself is this:

Is what you are proposing a more perfect system than what we have now? I would say that it is. So kudos for that.
How a candidate runs their campaign is up to them. The fact is at least those voters in Idaho now count for something to both instead of being completely meaningless to one side.

As it stands right now if no Biden voter went to the polls in Idaho it would not have made one bit of difference. Right now their votes are completely meaningless. The Republican voters in CA might as well have thrown their 6 million votes in the ocean because every single one of their votes in the presidential election was a complete waste of time under the current system.
 
Last edited:

Zam-Zam

Senator
Then you must not have understood your own question, because I answered what you asked. If you ever stop feigning ignorance in between the role of playing victim to the facts you wouldn't say that.

Yes it was because of the electoral college. Or did you not realize it was those results that being certified and the purpose of the insurrection was to interrupt that process ?
I disagree.

It's all good.
 
Then you must not have understood your own question, because I answered what you asked. If you ever stop feigning ignorance in between the role of playing victim to the facts you wouldn't say that.

Yes it was because of the electoral college. Or did you not realize it was those results that being certified and the purpose of the insurrection was to interrupt that process ?
I see. So if the election result was via some an election by rules other than the electoral college, the *insurrection* would not have taken place? I call BS on that.
 

Spamature

President
I see. So if the election result was via some an election by rules other than the electoral college, the *insurrection* would not have taken place? I call BS on that.
If Trump had lost under some other rules. Then he would have just come up with some other reason to send his mob on that rampage as long as he thought it would help him overturn the results.

I call, "that is just who Trump is", on that.
 
Gee...why would I want someone who couldn't win the most votes to be president? You put party first...that is why you want to keep things as they are.
Nah... I figure the people who set up this system early on knew what they were doing. I'll listen to them over people who want to change the system because they're not always winning.
 
If Trump had lost under some other rules. Then he would have just come up with some other reason to send his mob on that rampage as long as he thought it would help him overturn the results.

I call, "that is just who Trump is", on that.
So the electoral college has nothing to do with the rioters on January 6. Glad we can agree on that.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
So why did Trump's mob march on the Capitol ?
I can't speak for them anymore than you can, but I imagine it may have had something to do with the outcome, or reported outcome, of the election.

I doubt that they were there to protest the twelfth amendment.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Republicans have won the popular vote one time since 1990...that is exactly why you see no reason to change it.
So now you're telling me what I think?

That would be logical fallacy #2 on the list:

Strawman Argument

It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman argument is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.

The strawman argument is a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how strawman arguments and ad hominem fallacies can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.


With the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold.
This fallacy can be unethical if it’s done on purpose, deliberately mischaracterizing the opponent’s position for the sake of deceiving others. But often the strawman argument is accidental, because the offender doesn’t realize the are oversimplifying a nuanced position, or misrepresenting a narrow, cautious claim as if it were broad and foolhardy.


15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate | The Quad Magazine (thebestschools.org)
 

Spamature

President
I can't speak for them anymore than you can, but I imagine it may have had something to do with the outcome, or reported outcome, of the election.

I doubt that they were there to protest the twelfth amendment.
You have some vague idea that it was about the election, but you doubt if it had anything to do with what congress was doing there on that date at that time in regard to its constitutional duties ? You suppose the date of the rally a coincidence too, maybe ?

Did you cringe at the sheer disingenuousness of your post was before you hit reply ?
 
Last edited:

Zam-Zam

Senator
You have some vague idea that it was about the election, but you doubt if it had anything to do with what congress was doing there on that date at that time in regard to its constitutional duties ? You suppose the date of the rally a coincidence too, maybe ?

Did you cringe at the sheer disingenuousness of your post was before you hit reply ?

You asked me to read minds. Neither you nor I can do that, and it would be dishonest to claim otherwise. So I took a guess, and i believe, a fairly good one.

If you can show evidence (actual real evidence) that the protesters were upset specifically about the twelfth amendment, please feel free to present it.

And you can characterize my posts in any manner you like, it makes zero difference to me.
 

Spamature

President
You asked me to read minds. Neither you nor I can do that, and it would be dishonest to claim otherwise. So I took a guess, and i believe, a fairly good one.

If you can show evidence (actual real evidence) that the protesters were upset specifically about the twelfth amendment, please feel free to present it.

And you can characterize my posts in any manner you like, it makes zero difference to me.
The 12th Amendment prescribes :


The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

Now with all the videos that the mob took of itself, in which its members proclaim that precisely why they came there. You are telling me that none of them express the explicit desire to stop and or overturn this process.

A Challenge:

If I post video and audio to prove just that will you admit you are lying and your entire premise is dishonest ?
 
It was what Trump sent his mob to disrupt and overturn. You seem to think that Trump would only use a violent mob for one purpose.
I'm confused. I thought you said the electoral college was at least partly to blame for the riot on January 6. Which is it?
 
Top