New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

End winner take all in the electoral college and let the true voice of the people be heard.

Spamature

President
If you added up the 20 least populous states (or whatever it is) and added up their vote totals then Trump probably moves ahead of Hillary Clinton in total votes if added to the California votes. That said, why should 1 highly populated state get to dictate to the 20 who reject it? The founders were very straightforward in rejecting that notion. They wanted a President with broad appeal.....like in this map:

View attachment 48450

Any questions?
You could add up the number of votes cast until you get the the number of votes cast in CA and Trump would still get more EC votes.

Grassland, deserts, empty fields, and rocks.
How about a map that shows how it really looks.

1581713153945.png

A lot of unheard voices in the purple areas all over this land compared to how the EC is awarded in your map.

As far as how it really divide up as to people and how they register here is another look at your map.

1581714568022.png

A lot of empty land with no people and a lot of Dems in those red areas of your map does not show up.
 
Last edited:

excalibur

Council Member
I never said anything about acreage. I said STATES. Congress is setup the same way. States are all given equal say in the Senate and population determines the say in the House. The EC and the makeup in Congress are identical in that regard. It's a compromise between giving the states rights while giving population centers MORE of a say. Populated states can win control of Congress if they can get a few of the least populated states on board with them. They can't when the rest of America rejects them. It's a good compromise.

Too bad the 17th Amendment happened. It disturbed the beautifully designed system the Founders put in place. That was a Progressive idea, and they are back for more of the same over the EC, as well as the number of Senators per state too.

But why even have a Senate if the number is to be proportioned among them per population?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Oh, so you really didn't mean to compare California to Wyoming now? LOL. Electors are the result of INDIVIDUAL elections, not nationally. We don't award California's voters the electoral votes that come from Mississippi. That's what you are pushing for. If states want to divy up their electoral votes there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Petition you leaders in Colorado to do so since you are so outraged that Trump voters in your state were shut out in the last election.

A 10-0 win is equal to a 1-0 win in the World Series. You can scream and cry all you want about that but the World Series is set up to deliver the champion to who can win the most GAMES, not score the most total runs. Same with the EC. It's setup to deliver victory to who can claim the most states, not who can run up a vote total in poverty-stricken blue population centers.

Understand now?
Ah, so the election is a game? Got it. (Idiotic comparison by the way).

You seem to want to count runs made in the first game as 3 runs, but runs in the second are only worth .5, depending on who's city the game is played in.
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
True. We aren't lefties. We don't seek to kill the most vulnerable among us, support communism, pander to the lazy, riot, commit crime, refuse to work. You get the point.

Thanks for pointing that out to us again.
There you go with that faux ego soothing again.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I never said anything about acreage. I said STATES. Congress is setup the same way. States are all given equal say in the Senate and population determines the say in the House. The EC and the makeup in Congress are identical in that regard. It's a compromise between giving the states rights while giving population centers MORE of a say. Populated states can win control of Congress if they can get a few of the least populated states on board with them. They can't when the rest of America rejects them. It's a good compromise.
Unreal....so now you've wandered off of the topic to discuss control of Congress.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Too bad the 17th Amendment happened. It disturbed the beautifully designed system the Founders put in place. That was a Progressive idea, and they are back for more of the same over the EC, as well as the number of Senators per state too.

But why even have a Senate if the number is to be proportioned among them per population?
Was it better when the governor of a state or the legislature picked Senators and electors to the EC?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Isn't the EC divided equally to states based upon the number of voices that state has in Congress? Good lord, dullard, you don't even know the basic history of the EC or how it came about.
Didn't the original design have some states letting the governor pick the electors?
Didn't the original version have the person winning the most votes be president and the next most votes was the VP? Didn't the original design allow electors to vote for whoever they wanted, not the person chosen by the voters in their state?

It was a shitty design then and whatever logic supported it in those days has become obsolete by now.
 

oldgulph

Council Member
"comparing these two American institutions perfectly illustrates we why we need to get rid of the winner-take-all Electoral College rules and establish a fairer system of electing the president based on a national popular vote."


The Current Electoral College is Like the World Series (Which is Why We Need to Change It)

 
The EC is part of the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say that anyone who wins a state should get all of its EC votes. All of the liberals in Mississippi and the conservatives in California should not have their voices shut out by a system that makes their votes meaningless when all of the EC votes go to only one candidate.

A few voters in swing states should not decide the elections for the entire country. Nor should we have the election decided on razor thin margins in a Florida or Pennsylvania. The only fair way to do things is to divide the EC votes based upon the the percentage of votes each candidate gets in that state.

That way everyone's voice is equal and all votes are counted.
I agree with proportional representation in the EC as you propose. Always have.

I also think the EC should continue as a fallback should we ever go into some dark ages because of some political, economic, or more likely natural disaster. The EC facilitated democratic representation when it was adopted in large part for logistical reasons.
 

Spamature

President
I agree with proportional representation in the EC as you propose. Always have.

I also think the EC should continue as a fallback should we ever go into some dark ages because of some political, economic, or more likely natural disaster. The EC facilitated democratic representation when it was adopted in large part for logistical reasons.
This is the way it gets to stay while still being democratic in how it is exercised.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Will you guys please stop constantly imagining I would do what you would do ?

This post was made purely on the premise that it is best idea under the constitutional system we have.

You tell me why it should be up to Pennsylvania or Florida or North Carolina or any other swing state to decide the election ? Because that is what we have now. The current system makes the votes of liberals in red states and conservatives in blue states votes meaningless. How is that better to shut out the voices of almost half the population ?

Please explain that to me !
I guess you missed my post where I said I like the idea of breaking up the electoral votes in each state by that states votes. But the popular vote gives too much power to masses of people from the same state or city even.
 
Top