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.

EatTheRich

President
Huh? I gave you another issue that splits along those lines -- and I could cite a number of congresspersons who would love to gut farm programs in the name of more urban social programs. There are many issues that split along those lines -- you (inadvertently?) hit on one of them yourself. Most rural school districts want home rule, not interference from national policy.

And when you hit on "your actions are short cited and you'd better off taking a back seat..." you're underscoring the problem. People don't like to be told "you have to do this, it's good for you," especially when the person saying that is 1500 miles away and utterly lacking in knowledge on local issues.
And this is what the debate about federalism always comes back to … conservatives who historically have seen “home rule” as essential to preserving backward politics (above all white supremacy), vs. leftists who wanted an activist federal government to get things moving in a different direction.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
How it plays into regional disputes is the exact issue I described above. If nothing else, the president has a bully pulpit -- two quote the second of the truly imperial presidents.
There are many (mostly liberals) who want to change the equal representation of the states in the Senate because that gives rural, less populous states "too much power." Given those states "too much" power and "too much" authority in the election of the president was what it was designed to do. If everything is proportional, how can Wyoming with five electors and three representatives, hope to influence national policy in the face of a state like California with 55 electors and 53 representatives?

I just thought I'd remind you of the term "battleground states". They are the ones who have too much influence over the presidential election. The votes in something like 38 states are already decided...they all vote for the same party, every time.

Because of that people in the minority in those states probably don't bother to turn out for presidential elections...

If the Popular Vote compact went through then democrats in Texas and republicans in California would have a voice.
 

write on

Senator
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 know you're not naive.

G3rrymandering Is key to what the right wing is using in their quest at fascism.
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
At least the Constitution provides a method for dealing with a tie -- it's voted on in the House. Thankfully, this has never happened.
The House did select the President in 1824, not because of a tie but because no candidate got an Electoral majority.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I just thought I'd remind you of the term "battleground states". They are the ones who have too much influence over the presidential election. The votes in something like 38 states are already decided...they all vote for the same party, every time.

Because of that people in the minority in those states probably don't bother to turn out for presidential elections...

If the Popular Vote compact went through then democrats in Texas and republicans in California would have a voice.
Yes, there are battleground states. I grew up in one of them -- Missouri. And without those states, the middle United States would never see a presidential candidate. Candidates go to big cities for the same reason bank robbers go to banks -- each contain what they want.
We NEED battleground states because of states like California, where about half the precincts voted Republican, but all the big cities (and hence the popular vote) went to the Democratic Party. (An example, if one was needed, of what would happen if there were no electoral college in the nation).
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes, there are battleground states. I grew up in one of them -- Missouri. And without those states, the middle United States would never see a presidential candidate. Candidates go to big cities for the same reason bank robbers go to banks -- each contain what they want.
We NEED battleground states because of states like California, where about half the precincts voted Republican, but all the big cities (and hence the popular vote) went to the Democratic Party. (An example, if one was needed, of what would happen if there were no electoral college in the nation).
That makes no sense at all. The battleground states are where the entire election takes place. There are no campaign events in most states. In the one party states the minority voters might as well stay home. Republicans in Ca or Dems in Texas are wasting their time standing in line.
 

trapdoor

Governor
That makes no sense at all. The battleground states are where the entire election takes place. There are no campaign events in most states. In the one party states the minority voters might as well stay home. Republicans in Ca or Dems in Texas are wasting their time standing in line.
Yes, the entire election takes place in those states, because the election hinges on between 2 and 5 percent of the vote, and if the "Blue Wall" or some other interior set of states flips, the whole election can flip with them. There's no need to do a huge battle in CA -- it's going to choose the Dem candidate. The same is true in the other direction for Texas. Missouri? Iowa? Michigan? They're any candidate's to take as HRC learned the hard way.
And without the EC, those states would effectively be disenfranchised because the popular vote is in the big cities, and the big cities are in coastal states.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
And that disenfranchises small states.
States can't be disenfranchised....voters can be. So when my vote counts for a fraction of the influence of a voter in South Dakota, I'd like to understand why. I'd also suggest that to pretend 100% of the voters cast a vote for one candidate is simply inexplicable.

If 50% of the voters turn out in a state, please explain why all electors go to the winner of the vote...at best the winner should get half...not all.
 

God of War

Governor
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 agree with the caveat that elections be on only one day, require voter id that verifies citizenship, and be cast on paper ballots.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
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.
Meaning:

1. I stand a better chance of winning.

2. I can cheat in all states.

3. I can't win unless I can cancel you vote.

4. Statistics show in need to cheat in a (D) controlled House and Senate in a Midterm.
 
Top