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

[condorkristy]

They get EC 1 vote.
Which is still better than none.
And it means they should have spent a little more time wooing that .5% of voters in that state.

This also makes voter restrictions a much less effective tool for manipulating the outcome of a presidential election.

Proportional vote allocation is interesting. I would prefer the system we have now over it though. If you go with the proportional model, it will greatly favor the Democrats since large cities dominate. I doubt the GOP is going to want any of that.

 

[middleview]

They're not.

However the President is the final arbiter of what gets enacted into law and, in realistic terms; has a huge role in what is in those laws. When the entire election hangs on how your message plays in coastal states, the inevitable shadow of the laws will be to favor those states.

Valid question.

I would point out that you could stack up the 230 years of the American experiment against any 230 years of any other nation in modern times and we'd come out ahead; far ahead.

Perhaps they should look into it.


Decisions are made by those who show up. This is why the old adage about those who didn't vote can't complain about the candidates or the laws is very true.

But the EC is allowing those who vote for the winner to speak for those who voted against in a given state...that is mathematically bizarre. We are talking about the number of people who voted...they all showed up, but the ones in the minority are ignored.

This nation's greatness is certainly not decided by the results of the Electoral college...only four elections in our history went against the popular vote. In the cases of Bush and Trump the fact that the president was picked by the divisive math of the electoral college and not by the popular vote gave us the two worst presidents of my life time.

 

[condorkristy]

But the EC is allowing those who vote for the winner to speak for those who voted against in a given state...that is mathematically bizarre. We are talking about the number of people who voted...they all showed up, but the ones in the minority are ignored.

Which my system would rectify.

This nation's greatness is certainly not decided by the results of the Electoral college...only four elections in our history went against the popular vote. In the cases of Bush and Trump the fact that the president was picked by the divisive math of the electoral college and not by the popular vote gave us the two worst presidents of my life time.

Mmmmm... not sure.

You end up with these coalition governments and it probably has not done a lot for the nations that have them.

I prefer the government we have. How many Nobel Prize winners have we produced? We're the one indispensable nation on the planet... the first to help, the last to ask for repayment... For all of our flaws; the American Experiment has served humankind well.

 

[Spamature]

Proportional vote allocation is interesting. I would prefer the system we have now over it though. If you go with the proportional model, it will greatly favor the Democrats since large cities dominate. I doubt the GOP is going to want any of that.

You shouldn't take away a person voice because of where they decided to live.

As I must have said in this thread.

Trump got 6 million votes in Ca and his voters got 0 delegates for their efforts.

Over 1 million of those votes came out of Los Angeles County.

1 million people might as well had thrown their ballots in the trash the day they received them because the result was exactly the same either way.

Is that fair ?

 

[condorkristy]

You shouldn't take away a person voice because of where they decided to live.

As I must have said in this thread.

Trump got 6 million votes in Ca and his voters got 0 delegates for their efforts.

Over 1 million of those votes came out of Los Angeles County.

1 million people might as well had thrown their ballots in the trash the day they received them because the result was exactly the same either way.

Is that fair ?

I agree...

So that is why I'm proposing a system by which both will be counted. You have to win the EV as well as get the plurality of the PV.

But if it comes down to either a straight popular vote or what we have now, I'd say what we have now is better since it forces a nationwide candidate to run a nationwide campaign (as much as any system can).

Again, nobody who favors a straight popular vote (not saying you do) has ever addressed what happens if yew have 3 or 4 viable candidates and the winner ends up getting like 26-35% of the vote. You have nearly 2/3 of the nation vote for someone else? No way.

 

[Spamature]

I agree...

So that is why I'm proposing a system by which both will be counted. You have to win the EV as well as get the plurality of the PV.

But if it comes down to either a straight popular vote or what we have now, I'd say what we have now is better since it forces a nationwide candidate to run a nationwide campaign (as much as any system can).

Again, nobody who favors a straight popular vote (not saying you do) has ever addressed what happens if yew have 3 or 4 viable candidates and the winner ends up getting like 26-35% of the vote. You have nearly 2/3 of the nation vote for someone else? No way.

Honestly now that I think about it. Our system current system couldn't exist as is if it were more just a two party system.

The congress is already smaller than it should be. If it had kept up with the population growth there would be thousands of members of congress instead of the 535 we have now. Since Congress gets to pick its own voters through gerrymandering, there are no term limits, and they 97% reelection rate. Essentially it's an appointed position with a low chance of being removed.


If there were more than two popular candidates, no one would ever get to 270.
They would elect our presidents under anything except a two party system.

If they appointed him. They would feel it was their right to remove him when ever they had the votes. I do not think today's American politicians could be trusted with that kind of power.

The country would be a wreck, and that is before you think about the amount of corruption that could go into getting the votes for a POTUS candidate in congress.

 

[trapdoor]

States don’t have peculiar sectional interests the way they did at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The big contest in every state is between the working class and the capitalist rulers. Since the working class’s power is concentrated in the cities, the effect of the Electoral College is to dilute the power of the working class’s vote and give rural landowners like Bill Gates and Ted Turner a disproportionate voice in the selection of the president.

They don't? Please -- look at the fights in congress over "non-regional" issues like gun control, where the states on each coast want more, and the interior wants less, or to be let alone. Ditto for the battle over abortion. There are many issues that take an urban/rural split, and the more urbanized states would have every reason to rule based on their own concerns, no reason not too, and face no tool that could stop or delay them.

 

[write on]

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 disagree.

Why keep the EC for say, ND and SD?

How do they contribute? What legislation have they wrote?

The right wing has had an easy ride.

Time to end it.

 

[Spamature]

I disagree.

Why keep the EC for say, ND and SD?

How do they contribute? What legislation have they wrote?

The right wing has had an easy ride.

Time to end it.

They're part of this country like all the other states, that's why.

You can't punish people for where they decided to live or how much someone else values their contributions.

 

[write on]

They're part of this country like all the other states, that's why.

You can't punish people for where they decided to live or how much someone else values their contributions.

Oh, I agree! I came off a little callous but I think you know what I mean.

I'm going to be the devils advocate.

If you can disenfranchise voters in cities, then shouldn't you do the same to those that live rural?

 

[Spamature]

Oh, I agree! I came off a little callous but I think you know what I mean.

I'm going to be the devils advocate.

If you can disenfranchise voters in cities, then shouldn't you do the same to those that live rural?

If the question is, should we follow the GOP into the gutter ?

The answer is no, not if we can help it, but we can't take our options off the table.

 

[write on]

If the question is, should we follow the GOP into the gutter ?

The answer is no, not if we can help it, but we can't take our options off the table.

Democrats try to be pacifists in Congress, to their detriment.

Fair play politics is long gone with republicans. If they see an opening thinking they can dominate, they will try.

Not pulling any punches but I honestly believe it is the Democrats that has held off a second civil war with their pacificity .

 

[EatTheRich]

They don't? Please -- look at the fights in congress over "non-regional" issues like gun control, where the states on each coast want more, and the interior wants less, or to be let alone. Ditto for the battle over abortion. There are many issues that take an urban/rural split, and the more urbanized states would have every reason to rule based on their own concerns, no reason not too, and face no tool that could stop or delay them.

And gun control is one of the ONLY issues where the policy preferred in the urban areas is not the best one for the vast majority of people living in this country. The development of education, culture, freedom, and industry in the rural areas has been retarded by their own short-sighted preferences, and they would be better off taking a back seat politically and letting the cities dominate the political process.

 

[EatTheRich]

Democrats try to be pacifists in Congress, to their detriment.

Fair play politics is long gone with republicans. If they see an opening thinking they can dominate, they will try.

Not pulling any punches but I honestly believe it is the Democrats that has held off a second civil war with their pacificity .

The social role of the Democrats is to 1) put up a show of ineffectual opposition to the Republicans to preserve the illusion of democracy; 2) take the lead in pushing reactionary proposals (like gun control) that the ruling class finds easier to win public support for through that party.

 

[Spamature]

Democrats try to be pacifists in Congress, to their detriment.

Fair play politics is long gone with republicans. If they see an opening thinking they can dominate, they will try.

Not pulling any punches but I honestly believe it is the Democrats that has held off a second civil war with their pacificity .

We are trapped with a maniac in a room full of gasoline, and he has a box of matches.

He is glad to keep striking them.
We can either keep blowing them out or light up our own.
Their actions depend upon how many matches they have left.
Our actions depend on how much we still want to live indoors with electricity, running water, maybe literally, at that.

 

[write on]

We are trapped with a maniac in a room full of gasoline, and he has a box of matches.

He is glad to keep striking them.
We can either keep blowing them out or light up our own.
Their actions depend upon how many matches they have left.
Our actions depend on how much we still want to live indoors with electricity, running water, maybe literally, at that.

What country would you feel the best living in?

 

[Spamature]

What country would you feel the best living in?

The United States of America.

 

[condorkristy]

Honestly now that I think about it. Our system current system couldn't exist as is if it were more just a two party system.

Did you mean "more than just A two party system"?

How so?

The congress is already smaller than it should be. If it had kept up with the population growth there would be thousands of members of congress instead of the 535 we have now.

Agreed.

Since Congress gets to pick its own voters through gerrymandering, there are no term limits, and they 97% reelection rate. Essentially it's an appointed position with a low chance of being removed.

Not quite but there are not as many competitive races as their should be. All the more reason we need a third, fourth, or even a fifth party.

If there were more than two popular candidates, no one would ever get to 270.
They would elect our presidents under anything except a two party system.

Depends on the nature of the parties in question. What it would more than likely do is spur compromise....something we've forgotten is the cornerstone of a Republic.

If they appointed him. They would feel it was their right to remove him when ever they had the votes. I do not think today's American politicians could be trusted with that kind of power.

Well, the House would appoint the President under the 12th Amendment. The rules of impeachment are that the House and 2/3 of the Senate have to agree on removal. Neither is a certainty.

The country would be a wreck, and that is before you think about the amount of corruption that could go into getting the votes for a POTUS candidate in congress.

Well....relative to our discussion here and my plan...I'm not making up a stipulation; it's the 12th Amendment....on the books since 1804. Never has it resulted in the type of banana republic you've predicted.

A straight popular vote, in my view, is more likely to prescribe a banana republic scenario like you suggest. If you have a POTUS with 34% of the vote...there is plenty of "cover" for a congressional action to remove him or herr from office on trumped up charges.

What my system would do is give weight to the popular vote that it currently does not enjoy. And on the off chance that it differs with the electoral college vote; the centuries old remedy is available.

 

[Spamature]

Did you mean "more than just A two party system"?

How so?


Agreed.


Not quite but there are not as many competitive races as their should be. All the more reason we need a third, fourth, or even a fifth party.


Depends on the nature of the parties in question. What it would more than likely do is spur compromise....something we've forgotten is the cornerstone of a Republic.



Well, the House would appoint the President under the 12th Amendment. The rules of impeachment are that the House and 2/3 of the Senate have to agree on removal. Neither is a certainty.



Well....relative to our discussion here and my plan...I'm not making up a stipulation; it's the 12th Amendment....on the books since 1804. Never has it resulted in the type of banana republic you've predicted.

A straight popular vote, in my view, is more likely to prescribe a banana republic scenario like you suggest. If you have a POTUS with 34% of the vote...there is plenty of "cover" for a congressional action to remove him or herr from office on trumped up charges.

What my system would do is give weight to the popular vote that it currently does not enjoy. And on the off chance that it differs with the electoral college vote; the centuries old remedy is available.

California is going through another insane recall process.
The idea that at disingenuous racially pandering local LA right wing radio host could take over the reins of power in the largest state in the country with a tiny fraction of the popular vote makes me wary of the ability to game a system when comes to overturning elections.

 

[middleview]

Did you mean "more than just A two party system"?

How so?


Agreed.


Not quite but there are not as many competitive races as their should be. All the more reason we need a third, fourth, or even a fifth party.


Depends on the nature of the parties in question. What it would more than likely do is spur compromise....something we've forgotten is the cornerstone of a Republic.



Well, the House would appoint the President under the 12th Amendment. The rules of impeachment are that the House and 2/3 of the Senate have to agree on removal. Neither is a certainty.



Well....relative to our discussion here and my plan...I'm not making up a stipulation; it's the 12th Amendment....on the books since 1804. Never has it resulted in the type of banana republic you've predicted.

A straight popular vote, in my view, is more likely to prescribe a banana republic scenario like you suggest. If you have a POTUS with 34% of the vote...there is plenty of "cover" for a congressional action to remove him or herr from office on trumped up charges.

What my system would do is give weight to the popular vote that it currently does not enjoy. And on the off chance that it differs with the electoral college vote; the centuries old remedy is available.

There have only been four elections in our history where the electoral college selected the president who had not won the popular vote. That happens because the election is so close and our country has had that happen twice in 16 years.

The popular vote compact is the only solution that would not require a constitutional amendment. It would require states in the compact to award all of their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

One-page explanation (PDF) The National Popular Vote law will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It will apply the one-person-one-vote principle to presidential elections, and make every vote equal. Why a...

www.nationalpopularvote.com