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
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.
Gun control is more urban vs rural....gun crimes happen more in cities than in less populated areas. That is true in St. Louis Missouri and Chicago...not so much in Brush Colorado.

In any case the EC is the election of the president. How that plays into regional disputes is a good question. Obama was clearly unable to get the gun control he wanted.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
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.

So, if I understand it right; if Texas were to sign on to this compact, and Kamala Harris were to win the popular vote without ever having campaigned in Texas, Texas would award it's popular votes to Harris based on the voters from other states?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So, if I understand it right; if Texas were to sign on to this compact, and Kamala Harris were to win the popular vote without ever having campaigned in Texas, Texas would award it's popular votes to Harris based on the voters from other states?
why does it matter if she campaigned there? There were no campaign events in 38 states in 2020.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
We have a system that works most of the time and a sound plan for when it doesn't work. It was based, in part, on the fallacy that common persons shouldn't directly elect the President; they were not informed enough, not enlightened enough, and didn't know the issues...so electors would take care of this chore for the people. It was also based on national figures having to run a national campaign.

We The People have gotten passed those barriers to information, enlightenment and we can inform ourselves on the issues if we choose. The incorporation of the popular vote into the calculus that determines the President is long overdue. Still, we should keep the idea of a national candidate having to run a national campaign. It has served us well.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Gun control is more urban vs rural....gun crimes happen more in cities than in less populated areas. That is true in St. Louis Missouri and Chicago...not so much in Brush Colorado.

In any case the EC is the election of the president. How that plays into regional disputes is a good question. Obama was clearly unable to get the gun control he wanted.
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?
 

trapdoor

Governor
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.
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.
 

trapdoor

Governor
And zero of those state's electoral votes were awarded based on the outcomes in other states...
At least a few states have gone to proportionally awarding their electors based on the statewide popular vote: for example, if Candidate Awon 60 percent of the vote in Maine, and Candidate B won 40 percent, the split would be 60/40 based on the vote in Maine (I think that stat actually does this). So it would be based on the popular vote distribution within the state. If that's not how the compact reads, then I stand opposed to the compact (not that I was wildly enthusiastic in the first place).
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
At least a few states have gone to proportionally awarding their electors based on the statewide popular vote: for example, if Candidate Awon 60 percent of the vote in Maine, and Candidate B won 40 percent, the split would be 60/40 based on the vote in Maine (I think that stat actually does this). So it would be based on the popular vote distribution within the state. If that's not how the compact reads, then I stand opposed to the compact (not that I was wildly enthusiastic in the first place).
Well, that is what I tried to get a straight answer to...and got a rather snarky return.

The best I can tell is this:

The compact is that lets say Candidate Smith gets more popular votes than anyone else. All of the states in the compact award their electoral college votes to Candidate Smith whether or not Candidate Smith got a single vote in their state. Meaning that if Washington, Oregon and California have 10 electoral votes each and Candidate Smith never campaigned in or got a single vote in WA, OR, CA, Smith would get 30 electoral votes.

That seems bizarre to me.

Also what people either ignore or simply haven't thought about is this; whatever system we have...it has to work in all conditions. There shouldn't be all of this legal wrangling that goes on after an election. The rules have to account for every possibility.

Lets say we have 3 candidates, Larry, Moe and Curly. Larry gets 35% of the vote and Moe and Curly each get 32.5%...do you really want someone whom more than 4 out of 10 Americans didn't vote for to be the President? If you add Chimp into the mix...Larry would probably get less than 35%. Seems like a bad idea to me.

We already have a problem brewing--a big one--that nobody is discussing much. The rural areas are shrinking in population and the urban areas are growing. The problem is that our constitution ensures that every state gets 2 senators. Soon about 66 of the senators will be representing something like 30% of the nation. Ignore, if you can, the racial issus that this will bring up...2/3 of the Senate representing a population that is something like 99% white....gridlock is going to become the new norm (if it hasn't already). The only way to really break gridlock is to have a leader who can push an agenda....try doing that with 35% popular support.

 

trapdoor

Governor
Well, that is what I tried to get a straight answer to...and got a rather snarky return.

The best I can tell is this:

The compact is that lets say Candidate Smith gets more popular votes than anyone else. All of the states in the compact award their electoral college votes to Candidate Smith whether or not Candidate Smith got a single vote in their state. Meaning that if Washington, Oregon and California have 10 electoral votes each and Candidate Smith never campaigned in or got a single vote in WA, OR, CA, Smith would get 30 electoral votes.

That seems bizarre to me.

Also what people either ignore or simply haven't thought about is this; whatever system we have...it has to work in all conditions. There shouldn't be all of this legal wrangling that goes on after an election. The rules have to account for every possibility.

Lets say we have 3 candidates, Larry, Moe and Curly. Larry gets 35% of the vote and Moe and Curly each get 32.5%...do you really want someone whom more than 4 out of 10 Americans didn't vote for to be the President? If you add Chimp into the mix...Larry would probably get less than 35%. Seems like a bad idea to me.

We already have a problem brewing--a big one--that nobody is discussing much. The rural areas are shrinking in population and the urban areas are growing. The problem is that our constitution ensures that every state gets 2 senators. Soon about 66 of the senators will be representing something like 30% of the nation. Ignore, if you can, the racial issus that this will bring up...2/3 of the Senate representing a population that is something like 99% white....gridlock is going to become the new norm (if it hasn't already). The only way to really break gridlock is to have a leader who can push an agenda....try doing that with 35% popular support.

That' 32.5 percent thing has happened in the past. In 1860, Lincoln was one of four presidential candidates. His percentage of the popular vote was 39.8. His nearest competitor Stephen Douglas, received 29.5 percent of the popular vote. And that was without the compact or any other change to the electoral college -- it was a temporary departure from the two-party system. We saw something similar twice in the 1990s, when Ross Perot's candidacy drained votes from the GOP, electing Bill Clinton twice, both times on a mere plurality of the vote.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
That' 32.5 percent thing has happened in the past. In 1860, Lincoln was one of four presidential candidates. His percentage of the popular vote was 39.8. His nearest competitor Stephen Douglas, received 29.5 percent of the popular vote. And that was without the compact or any other change to the electoral college -- it was a temporary departure from the two-party system. We saw something similar twice in the 1990s, when Ross Perot's candidacy drained votes from the GOP, electing Bill Clinton twice, both times on a mere plurality of the vote.
One thing I think we could all agree on is that 538 electoral votes (or any even number of electoral votes that are available) is inviting trouble. An electoral tie should never be possible.

We're not adult enough in the nation any longer to admit it's a unimaginably stupid thing to have.
 

trapdoor

Governor
One thing I think we could all agree on is that 538 electoral votes (or any even number of electoral votes that are available) is inviting trouble. An electoral tie should never be possible.

We're not adult enough in the nation any longer to admit it's a unimaginably stupid thing to have.
At least the Constitution provides a method for dealing with a tie -- it's voted on in the House. Thankfully, this has never happened.
 

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?
Who has proposed changing the number of senators?
 

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?
How does Wyoming influence national policy through the Electoral college now?
 

EatTheRich

President
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?
Why should the few people in Wyoming be able to dictate terms to the rest of the country?
 
Top