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
Metroplex Pomposity

So you oppose the little guy getting a handicap? That's because you prefer the degenerates squished together in the crowded cities.
So everyone who lives in a city is a degenerate and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all, right? Only the opinions of the citizens of Bumfrick, Idaho are worth a damn...right?

So there are no farmers in California or New York and no cities in Kansas or North Dakota...

Each voter is equal to every other voter, but their votes aren't. The EC has outlived it's use.
 
That's precisely what concerns leftists.
Partisan Is a Contraction of "Part-Insane"

I disagree with Spamature on practically all his posts. But I don't see this as being motivated by a Leftist choir; it's just common sense. Democrats will benefit some years; Republicans will benefit in some other years. The American people will benefit in helping their candidate get electoral votes. Just a few thousand voters in Florida got Bush elected. That absurdity could, and will, happen to Republicans too.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The Media Are Too Dumb to Get It, But the PV Was All About Gary Johnson

Hillary didn't get 50%. She and the other Lefty got fewer popular votes than the Right Wing candidates did.
Gary Johnson got 4 million votes. Hillary got 65 million. No. It wasn't about Johnson.

Conservative magazine National Review stated that "if the presidential debates wind up convincing many voters that both Trump and Hillary are unacceptable, then Johnson's support could stabilize or even rise. If that happens, any increase in his support is likely to hurt Hillary more.

 
Last edited:
I'm Not sure what you're talking about really...

What my system would do is mitigate winner-take-all to some degree.

In the current system, If you win Texas by 1 vote; 5,000,001 to 5,000,00...in the current system; the 5M may as well not even have been cast. 41 Electoral votes go to the winner and that's that.

In my system, If you win Texas by 1 vote; 5,000,001 to 5,000,00...the 5M votes will still count because to become President Elect, you have to win both the Electoral College vote as well as the majority of the popular vote.

What my system doesn't do is make a candidate visit Alaska or North Dakota. No system on earth will do that.
Boise Gets Noisy

Your system would sent the election to the House, where California and New York wouldn't have any more influence than Idaho and South Dakota.
 
It does favor the Republicans in that it provides a means to take power out of the hands of the majority of voters, in any time of polarization and sharp factional struggle during which the House will naturally take on the political role intended. If you're gonna give the House that kind of power and rewrite the Constitution, maybe it would make more sense to go to voting by member and a parliamentary system in which the President served at the House's pleasure instead.
The Club Members Should Decide on New Members, Not the Club Officers

Once again, the present majority doesn't count because the previous majority was deprived of the natural right to choose what groups could vote and who could enter our country and become a voter. As usual, it's almost impossible to introduce a point that is ignored by our designated gurus.
 
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.
There's Something Suspicious About Not Having a Runoff Here

Have a runoff, like every other election does. Most of those 2/3 rank the candidates, so the majority's more favored or less-disliked would win the runoff.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
There's Something Suspicious About Not Having a Runoff Here

Have a runoff, like every other election does. Most of those 2/3 rank the candidates, so the majority's more favored or less-disliked would win the runoff.
We can barely get one out of every two people to vote once.... You want to make people vote twice? Good luck. I see what you're saying but I'm a pass on the runoff.
 
We can barely get one out of every two people to vote once.... You want to make people vote twice? Good luck. I see what you're saying but I'm a pass on the runoff.
Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Obsolescent Elitist Tyranny

Electing is different from voting; it is a forced choice to let a pre-owned politician do all your voting on the issues for you. In loco parentis, imposing a foster government.
 

EatTheRich

President
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.
Local problems are the purview of local government. The federal government should be elected in such a way that the parochial concerns of tiny local minorities don’t overwhelm the broad concerns of the country as a whole.
 
Hard to argue with that logic.
Snob Rule

It's also logical for the ruling class to maintain its power through massive humiliation of the people, telling us we're too ignorant or stupid to understand the best way to vote on the issues through referendums. So we have to follow their own sheltered and conceited ignorance, which makes them choose who can run for office in order to do all our real voting for us.
 

EatTheRich

President
The Club Members Should Decide on New Members, Not the Club Officers

Once again, the present majority doesn't count because the previous majority was deprived of the natural right to choose what groups could vote and who could enter our country and become a voter. As usual, it's almost impossible to introduce a point that is ignored by our designated gurus.
The “natural right” is a right to government by consent of the governed. But as a matter of fact the overwhelmingly white electorate did make that decision by pushing through the 14th and 15th Amendments.
 
Top