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

[condorkristy]

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.

As I said, your suggestion is certainly more fair.

I simply think that it doesn't do what you think it does and shifts the focus even more to the larger states as I think I have demonstrated mathematically.

Will you consider my idea?

Leave the current electoral college the way it is...California has 55, Texas has 38, etc... You need to get 270.
But add in the stipulation that you also have to get more popular votes than anyone else.


To become President Elect, you have to get both. Anything else and the House votes just like it does now.

Also, however, the "back office" stuff of when the electors meet and when the US Congress records the votes...all that is done the week of Thanksgiving. No more 10 weeks of this silly process.

 

[Angus Young]

It is responsible in the sense that it exist and its results were what he was trying to overturn when he sent a mob to stop the certification of Biden as POTUS.

So in other words, it had nothing to do with it. I agree.

 

[Spamature]

As I said, your suggestion is certainly more fair.

I simply think that it doesn't do what you think it does and shifts the focus even more to the larger states as I think I have demonstrated mathematically.

Will you consider my idea?

Leave the current electoral college the way it is...California has 55, Texas has 38, etc... You need to get 270.
But add in the stipulation that you also have to get more popular votes than anyone else.


To become President Elect, you have to get both. Anything else and the House votes just like it does now.

Also, however, the "back office" stuff of when the electors meet and when the US Congress records the votes...all that is done the week of Thanksgiving. No more 10 weeks of this silly process.

The EC exist for the purpose of eliminating the popular vote as being part of the decision-making process. Now you want to dangle the popular vote in front of people.

Yet congress will decide rather than the people even if by popular vote the people have made a choice ?

Because you could have a scenario where neither get 270 yet there is a winner who even though he got fewer EC votes, and he lost the popular, he is still installed as POTUS by the congress.

 

[Spamature]

So in other words, it had nothing to do with it. I agree.

Overturning the certification required by the 12th amendment was the purpose Trump sent his mob on its rampage.

What are you even trying to get at ?

 

[condorkristy]

The EC exist for the purpose of eliminating the popular vote as being part of the decision-making process. Now you want to dangle the popular vote in front of people.

I guess that is one way of looking at it. I'm not sure I'm dangling anything that already isn't being dangled.

Yet congress will decide rather than the people even if by popular vote the people have made a choice ?

We have that potential now. If you have 3 viable candidates the scenario you bring up is possible.

Because you could have a scenario where neither get 270 yet there is a winner who even though he got fewer EC votes, and he lost the popular, he is still installed as POTUS by the congress.

Again, we have that scenario now.

I think it's happened something like 3 times since re-construction that the popular vote and the electoral college have not been congruent.

 

[Spamature]

I guess that is one way of looking at it. I'm not sure I'm dangling anything that already isn't being dangled.


We have that potential now. If you have 3 viable candidates the scenario you bring up is possible.




Again, we have that scenario now.

I think it's happened something like 3 times since re-construction that the popular vote and the electoral college have not been congruent.

But your scenario means that the largest states with the most votes become an even bigger factor in winning an election. While the smaller states that are most likely to go one way means there is nothing to gain by going there become even more ignored than they would have been before.

 

[Angus Young]

Overturning the certification required by the 12th amendment was the purpose Trump sent his mob on its rampage.

What are you even trying to get at ?

The electoral college is irrelevant to the riots. You've already conceded there is no need for anyone to compromise due to the high bar set for repealing the electoral college. The entire thread and its premise is moot.

 

[Spamature]

The electoral college is irrelevant to the riots. You've already conceded there is no need for anyone to compromise due to the high bar set for repealing the electoral college. The entire thread and its premise is moot.

You should have given a speech from the podium at the Trump rally/ riot staging zone letting Trump's chumps and suckers in on that bit of information. Because not one single person who gave a speech before them had the courtesy to pass on that fact to Trump's freshly fired up mob.

 

[middleview]

I don't know. How?

With the electoral college what Trump tried to do was attack the electors of four states...that was far more likely than to try throwing out the 7 million votes Biden won by.

 

[middleview]

The electoral college is irrelevant to the riots. You've already conceded there is no need for anyone to compromise due to the high bar set for repealing the electoral college. The entire thread and its premise is moot.

What is relevant is Trump's attempt to decertify the electors from 4 states. Trump claimed (and his rabble believed it) that Pence could reject electors.

 

[middleview]

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.


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)

Your post:
The present system seems to work remarkably well.

For the republican party to consistently lose the popular vote but get elected anyway is exactly the opposite of a system that works well, by any stretch. The way democracy works is that if a party/candidate proposes policies contrary with the popular vote...they change their polices. With the Electoral college what happens is they come up with a plan to discourage voters from participating and they devise tactics to win a couple of states.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Your post:
The present system seems to work remarkably well.

For the republican party to consistently lose the popular vote but get elected anyway is exactly the opposite of a system that works well, by any stretch. The way democracy works is that if a party/candidate proposes policies contrary with the popular vote...they change their polices. With the Electoral college what happens is they come up with a plan to discourage voters from participating and they devise tactics to win a couple of states.

Again, you're telling me what you think I think.

I am content to let my own words speak for myself - You are not.

 

[middleview]

Again, you're telling me what you think I think.

I am content to let my own words speak for myself - You are not.

Only a republican who is more loyal to the party than the nation believes the system is working well.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Only a republican who is more loyal to the party than the nation believes the system is working well.

False dilemma fallacy.

I do not presume to speak for you. Please extend me the same courtesy.

 

[Angus Young]

What is relevant is Trump's attempt to decertify the electors from 4 states. Trump claimed (and his rabble believed it) that Pence could reject electors.

OK.

 

[Angus Young]

Your post:
The present system seems to work remarkably well.

For the republican party to consistently lose the popular vote but get elected anyway is exactly the opposite of a system that works well, by any stretch. The way democracy works is that if a party/candidate proposes policies contrary with the popular vote...they change their polices. With the Electoral college what happens is they come up with a plan to discourage voters from participating and they devise tactics to win a couple of states.

The popular vote is irrelevant in a presidential election. The electoral college was designed specifically to in part replace the popular vote. What don't you understand about that?

Halloooooooo?????

 

[middleview]

As I said, your suggestion is certainly more fair.

I simply think that it doesn't do what you think it does and shifts the focus even more to the larger states as I think I have demonstrated mathematically.

Will you consider my idea?

Leave the current electoral college the way it is...California has 55, Texas has 38, etc... You need to get 270.
But add in the stipulation that you also have to get more popular votes than anyone else.


To become President Elect, you have to get both. Anything else and the House votes just like it does now.

Also, however, the "back office" stuff of when the electors meet and when the US Congress records the votes...all that is done the week of Thanksgiving. No more 10 weeks of this silly process.

If 50% of the registered voters vote then the state can only award 50% of their electors.

 

[condorkristy]

But your scenario means that the largest states with the most votes become an even bigger factor in winning an election. While the smaller states that are most likely to go one way means there is nothing to gain by going there become even more ignored than they would have been before.

Not sure how you can say that....

Currently nobody is going to North Dakota or Maine or Rhode Island.... MS, AL, WVA, OR, TN, and a handful of other states...so what would it matter.

Secondly, my system (where you have to get both 270 and the 50.1% of the popular vote in no way makes it less (or more) likely that the states I mentioned above wlll be visited by a top tier candidate.

What my system installs is a bit of democracy...the idea that majority rules...into our presidential election process. Every other election in the nation has that stipulation...execpt one.

 

[Spamature]

Not sure how you can say that....

Currently nobody is going to North Dakota or Maine or Rhode Island.... MS, AL, WVA, OR, TN, and a handful of other states...so what would it matter.

Secondly, my system (where you have to get both 270 and the 50.1% of the popular vote in no way makes it less (or more) likely that the states I mentioned above wlll be visited by a top tier candidate.

What my system installs is a bit of democracy...the idea that majority rules...into our presidential election process. Every other election in the nation has that stipulation...execpt one.

Aren't those states winner take all ?

If you are going to lose by 1% under the current system, you might as well lose by 100%. There is no difference between those two outcomes right now.

But if it means the difference of a few percentage points to come out of that state with an EC vote, then the prospect of that state mattering on your road to 270 rises significantly.

 

[condorkristy]

Aren't those states winner take all ?

If you are going to lose by 1% under the current system, you might as well lose by 100%. There is no difference between those two outcomes right now.

But if it means the difference of a few percentage points to come out of that state with an EC vote, then the prospect of that state mattering on your road to 270 rises significantly.

I'm Not sure what you're talking about really...

What my system would do is mitigate winner-take-all to some degree.

In the current system, If you win Texas by 1 vote; 5,000,001 to 5,000,00...in the current system; the 5M may as well not even have been cast. 41 Electoral votes go to the winner and that's that.

In my system, If you win Texas by 1 vote; 5,000,001 to 5,000,00...the 5M votes will still count because to become President Elect, you have to win both the Electoral College vote as well as the majority of the popular vote.

What my system doesn't do is make a candidate visit Alaska or North Dakota. No system on earth will do that.