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.

Spamature

President
You have the right to chase unicorns all you want. I think it's hilarious.

Now, what is your plan to force states to do things your way?
Yes I have that right.

Making a compromise means you aren't being force. It is a choice. So I don't, it is not a plan to force anyone to do anything.

But we do know what you do when you run out of ideas for making excuses.

Because you are doing it right now.
 
Last edited:

Zam-Zam

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.

On the list of things in this world that need changing, I would put this pretty low.

In fact, I cannot honestly say that I have heard one really convincing argument in favor of changing it all....The present system seems to work remarkably well.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
The threshold could be what ever percentage of the vote it takes to get a candidate to one electoral, or you could include rank choice where voters choose a second candidate just in case their first choice does not get enough votes to meet the threshold.
Rank choice voting-as I understand it-could result in a 3rd party candidate winning a state that is highly competitive since there is so much animosity between the two major parties.

To the victor goes the spoils. 60/40 the extra goes to the candidate with the most at a discount of the winners left over percentage difference between the two.
That doesn't seem especially democratic. But it is good to hear that you're not sponsoring percentages of votes.

Since every state has at least 3 EC votes and few if any margins are so lopsided that they will result in the candidate not picking up at least one EC vote in small states. It puts all states into play because you would have to be above 80% to sweep a small state. Also, what you say in one state will be repeated by the media in all the other 49. So going extremist in one state for those votes could hurt you with votes in another.
I beg to differ.

The large states would get more attention than ever. Getting a single EV from DC or ND isn't worth a flight out there...if you're not in the running for the second EV.

While Obama did win more landslides than Clinton.

View attachment 60604

He also won more states and got more votes in total.

View attachment 60605

So you are against this because the candidate who got the most votes, won the most states, and had the greatest voter intensity behind them won ?

Why shouldn't it be that way ?
The "intensity" when it comes to the general election is preaching either a far left or far right sermon because it is all that will matter. A purple state gets you nowhere because instead of winner-take-all, you get a draw. But if you're a conservative you want to turn up the far right rhetoric and if your're a liberal you will want to turn up the far left rhetoric.

As for Hillary and Obama, I don't know the exact numbers but she was down by 43,000 without Florida and Michigan. One would safely conclude that she got more votes if you counted those two states as well.

The "intensity" factor (as you described it) is what would give me pause in a general election.

I say keep the Electoral College the same way but add in the stipulation that the president elect has to win both the electoral college and the popular vote. That way, every vote does count and the small states keep their clout instead of having it diluted.
 
Yes I have that right.

Making a compromise means you aren't being force. It is a choice. So I don't ,and it and that it is not, a plan, to force anyone to do anything.

But we do know what you do when you run out of ideas for making excuses.

Because you are doing it right now.
OK, so you realize your post and premise are a pipe dream that aren't going to happen. Good for you.

Now, what excuses have I been making? I have simply pointed out the folly in your delusional dreams.
 
On the list of things in this world that need changing, I would put this pretty low.

In fact, I cannot honestly say that I have heard one really convincing argument in favor of changing it all....The present system seems to work remarkably well.
That's precisely what concerns leftists.
 

Spamature

President
On the list of things in this world that need changing, I would put this pretty low.

In fact, I cannot honestly say that I have heard one really convincing argument in favor of changing it all....The present system seems to work remarkably well.
Yeah, because seditious insurrections and 25k troops encamped in our capital to prevent further insurrections are a sure sign that something is working remarkable well.
 

Spamature

President
Rank choice voting-as I understand it-could result in a 3rd party candidate winning a state that is highly competitive since there is so much animosity between the two major parties.



That doesn't seem especially democratic. But it is good to hear that you're not sponsoring percentages of votes.
You could just have a threshold. For Georgia for instance it would have taken a 6% of the vote for 3rd party candidate to win 1 EC vote. So in truth they would only have a chance to get votes in the larger states where the percentage would be lower. But it would also have less effect on the overall EC votes awarded.

I beg to differ.

The large states would get more attention than ever. Getting a single EV from DC or ND isn't worth a flight out there...if you're not in the running for the second EV.
Since you want to keep at least that one EC vote and every EC vote counts more than just votes for votes sake. The smaller or more partisan states would get more attention rather than just being written off because you don't stand to gain from them anyway.

The "intensity" when it comes to the general election is preaching either a far left or far right sermon because it is all that will matter. A purple state gets you nowhere because instead of winner-take-all, you get a draw. But if you're a conservative you want to turn up the far right rhetoric and if your're a liberal you will want to turn up the far left rhetoric.
The far left and the far right deserve attention. In fact ignoring them is how you drive them further to the extremes. Why should they compromise on their positions if no one is listening to them anyway ?

As for Hillary and Obama, I don't know the exact numbers but she was down by 43,000 without Florida and Michigan. One would safely conclude that she got more votes if you counted those two states as well.
FL and MI was some backhanded Republican SCOTUS type shite. They had both agreed to not campaign in those states and that they would be excluded. Then when Hillary saw the odds of winning slipping away she tried to go back on the agreement and get them included.

The "intensity" factor (as you described it) is what would give me pause in a general election.
Intensity is a factor not just in turn out but also in governing. People very much on your side will give you more leeway and a greater benefit of the doubt when you are the POTUS and have an agenda to fulfill.

I say keep the Electoral College the same way but add in the stipulation that the president elect has to win both the electoral college and the popular vote. That way, every vote does count and the small states keep their clout instead of having it diluted.
This is closer to what you want than what we have now.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Yeah, because seditious insurrections and 25k troops encamped in our capital to prevent further insurrections are a sure sign that something is working remarkable well.

You believe that happened because of the Electoral College?

If you do, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Yeah, because seditious insurrections and 25k troops encamped in our capital to prevent further insurrections are a sure sign that something is working remarkable well.
And you think that happened because of the electoral college and the distribution of electors? Interesting. So let me guess.... the riots at Trump's inauguration and riots throughout 2020 nothing to do with the electoral college and the distribution of electors, right?
 

Spamature

President
And you think that happened because of the electoral college and the distribution of electors? Interesting. So let me guess.... the riots at Trump's inauguration and riots throughout 2020 nothing to do with the electoral college and the distribution of electors, right?
Sure. And like I said this eliminates that for both sides. I just used the Republican example because of how extremist it was. Trump lie about the election being stolen would not have had the impact it did on people who actually think because he would have had to dupe them into thinking that every single state's election was rigged against him.
 

Spamature

President
You believe that happened because of the Electoral College?

If you do, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
I believe what happened was because of unabashed lying by Trump using the lies of his lying lawyers. Lawyers who would not repeat those same lies when in a court of law where they would be held responsible for them.

Trump's play only makes sense if the states are winner take all. Had they not been the EC would have been split according to the vote and he would have had nothing to gain from his lies.
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
On the list of things in this world that need changing, I would put this pretty low.

In fact, I cannot honestly say that I have heard one really convincing argument in favor of changing it all....The present system seems to work remarkably well.
Welcome back from your 20-year coma. We’ll talk after you get caught up on the news.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
You could just have a threshold. For Georgia for instance it would have taken a 6% of the vote for 3rd party candidate to win 1 EC vote. So in truth they would only have a chance to get votes in the larger states where the percentage would be lower. But it would also have less effect on the overall EC votes awarded.
Sounds like wholesale disenfranchisement of anyone who votes third party... Its not a huge deal but it seems as though it will lock us into a two party system forever.

Since you want to keep at least that one EC vote and every EC vote counts more than just votes for votes sake. The smaller or more partisan states would get more attention rather than just being written off because you don't stand to gain from them anyway.
I just disagree. Idaho has 4 electoral votes. Could you fathom Joe Biden going to Idaho to campaign for 1 or 2 of those when he is pretty much assured of getting one anyway? Trying to move the needle in deep red or deep blue states is a waste of time. I'm not sure why you think such a meager vote reward would be worth the effort. While it's true he would be losing votes in states he's currently winning in the winner-take-all format...the same is true for the states he lost in the winner-take all format. He'd get 15 or 16 out of Florida and 15-17 out of Texas. Again, not sure why you think he would care about to get the second Electoral College vote out of Idaho.


The far left and the far right deserve attention. In fact ignoring them is how you drive them further to the extremes. Why should they compromise on their positions if no one is listening to them anyway ?
I disagree with that strongly. The system you're prescribing wouldn't be "listening" and giving them "attention", it would require pandering. Pandering to a moderate or independent is preferable to pandering to a bunch of white sepratists.

This is closer to what you want than what we have now.
I'd rather have the system we have now than what you're prescribing. I'm a pass on it.
 

Spamature

President
Sounds like wholesale disenfranchisement of anyone who votes third party... Its not a huge deal but it seems as though it will lock us into a two party system forever.
What do you call it right now ?
Because, right now there is pretty much zero chance a 3rd party candidate will get even one EC vote in any state.

I just disagree. Idaho has 4 electoral votes. Could you fathom Joe Biden going to Idaho to campaign for 1 or 2 of those when he is pretty much assured of getting one anyway? Trying to move the needle in deep red or deep blue states is a waste of time. I'm not sure why you think such a meager vote reward would be worth the effort. While it's true he would be losing votes in states he's currently winning in the winner-take-all format...the same is true for the states he lost in the winner-take all format. He'd get 15 or 16 out of Florida and 15-17 out of Texas. Again, not sure why you think he would care about to get the second Electoral College vote out of Idaho.
So it would be up to Biden's opponent to try to get all 4 instead of 2. Because if not then he is taking that state for granted as well or Biden may need it to be 2 instead of 1 if he wants to get to 270. Because he nor his opponent will be guaranteed the previous margins they got when it was winner take all.

I disagree with that strongly. The system you're prescribing wouldn't be "listening" and giving them "attention", it would require pandering. Pandering to a moderate or independent is preferable to pandering to a bunch of white sepratists.



I'd rather have the system we have now than what you're prescribing. I'm a pass on it.
And that pandering to the WP sect could lose the candidate more votes overall than it will gain him in pandering to that group. Also, you aren't giving any credit to the people in that state whose voice now count in turning against the racist panderer and awarding their votes to his opponent.

I would rather depend on the aid of the non-racist than ignore the state because the majority in that state are racist and the non-minority has no say in the awarding of those EC totals.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
What do you call it right now ?
Because, right now there is pretty much zero chance a 3rd party candidate will get even one EC vote in any state.
I'm not so sure about that. The larger problem the 3rd party candidate has is getting on the debate stage.

I'll put it to you like this. IF Trump were to run as a 3rd party candidate in 2024...do you think he would win zero states?

In essence...your system does away with winning states. It's a Popular vote system masquerading as a system that keeps electoral votes and awards them proportionately.

So it would be up to Biden's opponent to try to get all 4 instead of 2. Because if not then he is taking that state for granted as well or Biden may need it to be 2 instead of 1 if he wants to get to 270. Because he nor his opponent will be guaranteed the previous margins they got when it was winner take all.
CIting Idaho again... Biden would get 1 EV and Trump would have gotten 3. IF it were Biden splitting 2-2 or getting 3-1....neither would have visited Idaho. Its easier and more lucrative to run up your vote tally in larger states where you can get a half dozen or more.

And that pandering to the WP sect could lose the candidate more votes overall than it will gain him in pandering to that group. Also, you aren't giving any credit to the people in that state whose voice now count in turning against the racist panderer and awarding their votes to his opponent.

I would rather depend on the aid of the non-racist than ignore the state because the majority in that state are racist and the non-minority has no say in the awarding of those EC totals.
Okay. I think that if were to institute your system, you'd be disappointed at the behavior of the candidates
 

Spamature

President
I'm not so sure about that. The larger problem the 3rd party candidate has is getting on the debate stage.

I'll put it to you like this. IF Trump were to run as a 3rd party candidate in 2024...do you think he would win zero states?

In essence...your system does away with winning states. It's a Popular vote system masquerading as a system that keeps electoral votes and awards them proportionately.
We already have a popular vote system at the state level. Then we disenfranchise a number and even sometimes the majority of voters by awarding the EC votes winner take all. This current system really silences one side in all but the swing states.

CIting Idaho again... Biden would get 1 EV and Trump would have gotten 3. IF it were Biden splitting 2-2 or getting 3-1....neither would have visited Idaho. Its easier and more lucrative to run up your vote tally in larger states where you can get a half dozen or more.
It would be foolish and risky to think that you can run up move votes in a populous state while ignoring the smaller states. Biden wouldn't have a 55 vote cushion coming out of Calif. And Trump wouldn't have a 67 vote cushion coming out of Texas and Florida.

This changes the way they would have to run their campaigns and every state counts to a more or less extent instead of some of them not counting at all.
Okay. I think that if were to institute your system, you'd be disappointed at the behavior of the candidates
I don't think I be any less disappointed in our politics than I am now anyway.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
I believe what happened was because of unabashed lying by Trump using the lies of his lying lawyers. Lawyers who would not repeat those same lies when in a court of law where they would be held responsible for them.

Trump's play only makes sense if the states are winner take all. Had they not been the EC would have been split according to the vote and he would have had nothing to gain from his lies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, other than to rant against people you do not care for.

That seems to have nothing to do with your thread topic.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, other than to rant against people you do not care for.

That seems to have nothing to do with your thread topic.
Bingo
Choice any prize from the 1st row

EC has been spammed!
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
It would be foolish and risky to think that you can run up move votes in a populous state while ignoring the smaller states. Biden wouldn't have a 55 vote cushion coming out of Calif. And Trump wouldn't have a 67 vote cushion coming out of Texas and Florida.

This changes the way they would have to run their campaigns and every state counts to a more or less extent instead of some of them not counting at all.
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the other points...

The one above though, I can demonstrate mathematically why I think you're wrong. Read it with an open mind:

The population of Idaho is 1,780,000. The largest city is Boise with 250,000 give or take.
The population of California is 39,000,000. Twenty-Three million live in SOCAL.

Idaho has 4 electoral votes.
In 2020 it was 64/33 Trump. Using your calculation, Trump would get 2/3 of the electoral votes which, I guess, rounds up to 3. Biden would get 1.
The voting was as follows: 554,000 votes for Trump to 287,000 votes for Biden. So about 830,000 voted out of the 1,040,000 registered voters or 81% or so.
For Biden to get that 2nd electoral vote, he'd have to either get all of the 19% who didn't vote or campaign hard to get two hundred to four hundred thousand that voted for Trump to swing over to him. That means campaign stops, radio, TV, print....

California has 55 electoral votes.
In 2020 it was 64/33 Biden. Using your calculation, Biden would get 2/3 of the electoral votes which, I guess, rounds up to 38. Trump would get 17
The voting was as follows; 11,110,000 votes for Biden to 6,000,000 votes for Trump. So about 17,000,000 voted out of the 22,000,000 registered voters or 80% or so.
For Trump to get the 18th electoral vote, he'd have to either get some of the 20% who didn't vote or campaign to get four hundred thousand of those that voted for Biden to swing over to him. That means campaign stops, radio, TV, print....

The difference is this:

Each electoral vote is about 400,000-450,000 voters.

In Idaho, there are only 200K who didn't vote so you have to cut into the other guy's tally. In California, there are 5M who didn't vote. You don't have to really cut into the other guys' tally. Although the net result of more campaigning, TV ads, radio, print would be that you would cut into the other guy's tally somewhat. But it's easier to get people who are not in the other camp than it is to get people who are in no camp.
Also, there is the multiplier effect that a 30 second ad on TV in Boise reaches about 18,000 people or so. A Thirty second ad in Orange County reaches hundreds of thousands of people in and around the OC.

Also...where would you rather have a fundraiser? Beverly Hills or Boise?

Your assertion that if you just open it up there would be candidates flying into Fargo to get after a single electoral vote is unrealistic.

Of course, what the other question that presents itself is this:

Is what you are proposing a more perfect system than what we have now? I would say that it is. So kudos for that.
 

Spamature

President
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, other than to rant against people you do not care for.

That seems to have nothing to do with your thread topic.
Then you must not have understood your own question, because I answered what you asked. If you ever stop feigning ignorance in between the role of playing victim to the facts you wouldn't say that.

Yes it was because of the electoral college. Or did you not realize it was those results that being certified and the purpose of the insurrection was to interrupt that process ?
 
Top