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.

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
So the guy who grew up and lived his life in High rises should represent and understand the wants and needs of a farming community ?
If you look at the districts I mentioned on the map, that is what we have now.

Or a guy grew up and lives in Beverly Hills should represent people's whose main concern is poverty and at risk youths ?
Again, that is what we have now to satisfy some bizarre and rather juvenile notion that if you can draw a line around two people's residence...they must have something in common.


When it comes to govt people who live around each other often have the same problems and likely would like people who understand their experiences.
Yeah....

The guy who represents Beverly Hills currently represents El Segundo.

1631596835498.png
Lots of shared experiences between Beverly Hills and El Segundo?

My plan, at the very least, allows the district to pick someone instead of having the folks in Sacramento pick someone for them through gerrymandering. And, if they aren't getting the job done...there is no political machine in the State Capitol making their district nice and safe for them--or someone else from the same party.
 

trapdoor

Governor
No, giving an equal voice to every voter means that the votes of someone in Kansas or Missouri counts exactly as much as the votes of someone somewhere else.
Really? This is true only if Kansans have no unique local problems. You can bet Kansas with its 1.5 million registered voters would really pull in attention compared tosay, Los Angeles County with 5.8 million. Kansas would never even see a candidate, let alone have any influence in the election.
 

trapdoor

Governor
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.
The voters in the state would be effectively disenfranchised. How would 1.5 million voters in Kansas ever impact an election were 150 million voters are cast. We'd have a country run by New York, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The voters in the state would be effectively disenfranchised. How would 1.5 million voters in Kansas ever impact an election were 150 million voters are cast. We'd have a country run by New York, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania.
Each voter in Kansas would have the same influence as a voter in California, New York, Texas or Pennsylvania. Why would a voter in Kansas have more influence than voters elsewhere?

This is the United States and each voter counts as one vote....and it isn't about how the country is run, it is about the election of the president alone.
 

Spamature

President
Obama has a soft spot for Islam unless he's posing by drone striking Muslims so that he doesn't appear to be a "secret Muslim". Thank God, he's gone and only behind the scenes.
Trump loves Muslims so much he became an accessory after the fact to the murder of a journalist to please his murderous Saudi Muslim pals

In addition to being the former business partners with the leader of Iran's Red Guard, Soleimani.

Behind the scenes, he probably has a joint secret Chinese bank account with at least one of them behind Melania's back.


HE LOST
GET OVER IT
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
If you look at the districts I mentioned on the map, that is what we have now.


Again, that is what we have now to satisfy some bizarre and rather juvenile notion that if you can draw a line around two people's residence...they must have something in common.




Yeah....

The guy who represents Beverly Hills currently represents El Segundo.

View attachment 65699
Lots of shared experiences between Beverly Hills and El Segundo?

My plan, at the very least, allows the district to pick someone instead of having the folks in Sacramento pick someone for them through gerrymandering. And, if they aren't getting the job done...there is no political machine in the State Capitol making their district nice and safe for them--or someone else from the same party.
They have living in the same place in common. When one of their houses is on fire the other is also in danger. If neighbor one's is violently attacked in his home the other people on that street will much less safe than

El Segundo is gerrymandering and city vs city conflict.

That is also inside of the boundary of Los Angeles. That district is drawn the way it is to keep control over the Port of Los Angeles in that district in Los Angeles and under the control of the City of Los Angeles.

Plus, those areas along the cost rival Beverly Hills in many aspects, especially how much the homes cost. El Segundo is primarily an industrial and office area for big corporations.
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
You're right, Trump should have had abandoned Saudi Arabia, like Carter did Iran, and that wouldn't cause any kind of problem. That's real strategical thinking Kee-mo Sahbeh. ha ha
No he did not abandon Iran.

In fact, they took the hostages BECAUSE we would not abandon the Shah and turn him over to the Ayatollah Khomeini.
In that very real sense, his loyalty to our word cost him the presidency.
Don't compare a truly good human being to someone like Trump.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
They have living in the same place in common. When one of their houses is on fire the other is also in danger. If neighbor one's is violently attacked in his home the other people on that street will much less safe than

El Segundo is gerrymandering and city vs city conflict.

That is also inside of the boundary of Los Angeles. That district is drawn the way it is to keep control over the Port of Los Angeles in that district in Los Angeles and under the control of the City of Los Angeles.

Plus, those areas along the cost rival Beverly Hills in many aspects, especially how much the homes cost. El Segundo is primarily an industrial and office area for big corporations.
I'm confused... are you agreeing with me?

Are you actually saying that the People of El Segundo and the people of Beverly Hills have something in common other than both being in California?

Because earlier you wrote:

Or a guy grew up and lives in Beverly Hills should represent people's whose main concern is poverty and at risk youths ?
 

Spamature

President
I'm confused... are you agreeing with me?

Are you actually saying that the People of El Segundo and the people of Beverly Hills have something in common other than both being in California?

Because earlier you wrote:
If you have ever been to El Segundo you would know that most of it is industrial, not residential. It's where the airport, High-tech corporate office spaces, and sewage treatment plants are. The other cities in that district are High income communities because it's beachfront property.

High incomes and beachfront locations are the ties that bind in those areas.
These people would be concerned about the same issues.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
If you have ever been to El Segundo you would know that most of it is industrial, not residential. It where the airport and sewage treatment plants are. The other cities in that district are High income communities because it's beachfront property.

High incomes and beachfront locations are the ties that bind in those areas.
These people would be concerned about the same issues.
I have been to El Segundo many times. Its nothing like Beverly Hills or Malibu.
Its also a very High Crime rate compared to Beverly Hills...which is what you said shouldn't happen--a single rep shouldn't represent folks with wildly divergent interests. You mentioned Beverly Hills so I brought it up. The CA 33 is not unique. The Texas 23rd goes from New Mexico to suburban El Paso. Lots of commonalities there?

I fail to see the point you're making because in one breath you're stating that Ted Lieu shouldn't be required to represent people with different interests but when it's brought up; you say that he should be.

Maybe I'm just missing it.
 

Spamature

President
I have been to El Segundo many times. Its nothing like Beverly Hills or Malibu.
Its also a very High Crime rate compared to Beverly Hills...which is what you said shouldn't happen--a single rep shouldn't represent folks with wildly divergent interests. You mentioned Beverly Hills so I brought it up. The CA 33 is not unique. The Texas 23rd goes from New Mexico to suburban El Paso. Lots of commonalities there?

I fail to see the point you're making because in one breath you're stating that Ted Lieu shouldn't be required to represent people with different interests but when it's brought up; you say that he should be.

Maybe I'm just missing it.
Yes, you are missing it. You're acting as if political leaders are interchangeable cogs in a machine.

You are missing that leadership starts locally, someone takes the lead on a problem the community faces, gets people to rally around their cause and then even runs for office to make sure that problem is addressed.

As for El Segundo, living there means living with the airport to your north and the sewage treatment plant between you and the ocean. That's going to be a pretty rough part of town anyway because it is not a desirable environment to in live. Those sewage plants smell god awful and jet airliners are loud.

But the rest of that district is made up of some of the wealthiest communities in Southern California.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Yes, you are missing it. You're acting as if political leaders are interchangeable cogs in a machine.

You are missing that leadership starts locally, someone takes the lead on a problem the community faces, gets people to rally around their cause and then even runs for office to make sure that problem is addressed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.... when districts are born, re-drawn, or combined, the incumbent often has to move into their new district to run for their seat, right? Its not as if, in my plan, that someone who wants to represent the Arkansas 1st can't move into their new district; just as they would if someone re-d

As for El Segundo, living there means living with the airport to your north and the sewage treatment plant between you and the ocean. That's going to be a pretty rough part of town anyway because it is not a desirable environment to in live. Those sewage plants smell god awful and jet airliners are loud.

But the rest of that district is made up of some of the wealthiest communities in Southern California.
[/QUOTE]

Again, this is were I'm missing it. Earlier you wrote in what I thought was opposition to my idea....

So the guy who grew up and lived his life in High rises should represent and understand the wants and needs of a farming community ?

Or a guy grew up and lives in Beverly Hills should represent people's whose main concern is poverty and at risk youths ?
That is precisely what we have now. You brought up Beverly Hills. The same rep who reps BH also reps El Segundo...one of the highest Crime rates in the nation and likely has a sh*tload of poverty and at risk youths.

Are you happy with what we have now? Its hard to tell. In one breath you seem to think that someone who "grew up in Beverly Hills" shouldn't be saddled with also representing people who are concerned about poverty or at risk youths.

My plan is not perfect. But at least it gets rid of the gerrymandering that keeps seats safe for one party or the other since the elected officials are not protected by someone of their same party making the districts up for the express purpose of protecting their own team.
 

Spamature

President
Correct me if I'm wrong.... when districts are born, re-drawn, or combined, the incumbent often has to move into their new district to run for their seat, right? Its not as if, in my plan, that someone who wants to represent the Arkansas 1st can't move into their new district; just as they would if someone re-d




Again, this is were I'm missing it. Earlier you wrote in what I thought was opposition to my idea....



That is precisely what we have now. You brought up Beverly Hills. The same rep who reps BH also reps El Segundo...one of the highest Crime rates in the nation and likely has a sh*tload of poverty and at risk youths.

Are you happy with what we have now? Its hard to tell. In one breath you seem to think that someone who "grew up in Beverly Hills" shouldn't be saddled with also representing people who are concerned about poverty or at risk youths.

My plan is not perfect. But at least it gets rid of the gerrymandering that keeps seats safe for one party or the other since the elected officials are not protected by someone of their same party making the districts up for the express purpose of protecting their own team.
Okay.

a) If you let people vote in California for who the group who decides how to draw the districts. You will end up with Democratic Party affiliated officer holders in power of redistricting the state.

Assigning them by zipcode is too random.

But amazingly California is right in the process of enacting the reforms in redistricting passed in 2008 and 2010 as we speak.

It is an open and public involved process.

 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Okay.

a) If you let people vote in California for who the group who decides how to draw the districts. You will end up with Democratic Party affiliated officer holders in power of redistricting the state.


Assigning them by zipcode is too random.
What is "too random"?

Voters should always be able to choose their leaders; not the other way around. The other way around is exactly what we have now. District lines are drawn to keep one party in power and another party in check. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. If the Spotted Owl party were to ever get leverage in a state, they would do it as well.

As grotesque as this is, it still beats direct democracy however.


But amazingly California is right in the process of enacting the reforms in redistricting passed in 2008 and 2010 as we speak.

It is an open and public involved process.

Its a good step. I think my way is better (big surprise). From your link:

The California State Auditor randomly drew from the names remaining in the three sub-pools: three Democrats, three Republicans, and two from neither of those parties. These eight applicants became the first eight members of the Commission. "

Why have a commission at all? Just let the completely unbiased, apolitical, brutally efficient USPS ZIP codes do the work for you?

As our previous discussion clarified....we already have representatives who can't possibly effectively address the concerns of districts drawn only to make sure they A) stay in office and B) have about 430,000 people in them. So why pretend that we are doing something that is effective when clearly it isn't? Just divide up the electorate for each seat by equal populations chosen at random.

Why is this better? Glad you asked!

  1. No More Safe Seats! You get rid of safe seats. There are 435 seats but acdording to Ballotpedia...about 41 are actually in play. The other 400 or so are safe. Get rid of that.
  2. Safety=Radicalism! So what happens with the 400 safe seats? You get radical representatives who don't have to worry about re-election and appealing to those who are moderate or on the other side of the spectrum. More moderates in Washington equals less gridlock in Washington.
  3. Diversity! Pitting democrats against democrats and republicans against republicans is always fun. What the plan would do is make primaries a lot more interesting since more seats will be up for grabs. What this leads to is fractured constituencies. Fractured voter blocks often end up allowing underdogs a chance to win since the sore losers often stay home. This will make for a more intellectually and possibly ethnically diverse legislative body.
 

Spamature

President
What is "too random"?

Voters should always be able to choose their leaders; not the other way around. The other way around is exactly what we have now. District lines are drawn to keep one party in power and another party in check. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. If the Spotted Owl party were to ever get leverage in a state, they would do it as well.

As grotesque as this is, it still beats direct democracy however.




Its a good step. I think my way is better (big surprise). From your link:

The California State Auditor randomly drew from the names remaining in the three sub-pools: three Democrats, three Republicans, and two from neither of those parties. These eight applicants became the first eight members of the Commission. "

Why have a commission at all? Just let the completely unbiased, apolitical, brutally efficient USPS ZIP codes do the work for you?

As our previous discussion clarified....we already have representatives who can't possibly effectively address the concerns of districts drawn only to make sure they A) stay in office and B) have about 430,000 people in them. So why pretend that we are doing something that is effective when clearly it isn't? Just divide up the electorate for each seat by equal populations chosen at random.

Why is this better? Glad you asked!

  1. No More Safe Seats! You get rid of safe seats. There are 435 seats but acdording to Ballotpedia...about 41 are actually in play. The other 400 or so are safe. Get rid of that.
  2. Safety=Radicalism! So what happens with the 400 safe seats? You get radical representatives who don't have to worry about re-election and appealing to those who are moderate or on the other side of the spectrum. More moderates in Washington equals less gridlock in Washington.
  3. Diversity! Pitting democrats against democrats and republicans against republicans is always fun. What the plan would do is make primaries a lot more interesting since more seats will be up for grabs. What this leads to is fractured constituencies. Fractured voter blocks often end up allowing underdogs a chance to win since the sore losers often stay home. This will make for a more intellectually and possibly ethnically diverse legislative body.
You need the human element. You need for people to be able to talk to someone about where they live, and you need a human to take that into consideration when they draw these lines. That way you have people who have common problems and goals grouped together for the sake of better govt rather than gaining political power.



In fact right now you can see the sausage being made and citizens can participate themselves here until 4:30 PST :

 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Really? This is true only if Kansans have no unique local problems. You can bet Kansas with its 1.5 million registered voters would really pull in attention compared tosay, Los Angeles County with 5.8 million. Kansas would never even see a candidate, let alone have any influence in the election.
When did either candidate have a campaign event in Kansas in 2016? When did anyone have a campaign event in LA?

The only states that were actually part of the campaigns were the battlegrounds....that is maybe 12 states at best.

What unique local problems would be on the President's desk?
 
But why do we need to compromise? Who are you to tell states how to award their electors?
Politics Is Toxic Waste Where Words Mutate or Are Manipulated Into Meaninglessness

The state is not its citizens. You're letting state legislature nobodies stand for the people of their state. Let the people decide. Even if winner-take-all is in an individual's political interest if his state tends to vote for his party, he'll think more of the other 49 states where his party's vote might not count.
 
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.
Metroplex Pomposity

So you oppose the little guy getting a handicap? That's because you prefer the degenerates squished together in the crowded cities.
 
Some states have already changed how they count electoral votes.....and that didn't need an amendment. See Nebraska.
Too Much Individualism Leads to Anarchy

It needs to have every state required. Why would the more populated states want to lose their almost overwhelming advantage. Suppose California decides for split electoral votes. Then New York wouldn't, because it would become almost twice as decisive as California if it kept winner-take-all.
 
Top