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.

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Check out the Popular Vote Compact. Who decided to give away the votes of 66 million voters to a guy who only got 62 million votes?

In 2016 presidential candidates didn't campaign based on the popular vote winning so you have no idea who would have won the popular vote as many liberals and conservatives in California and Texas for example stayed home because they knew what their state would be before it even started.

If it was based on the popular vote then voters would have come out in those states and the candidates would have campaigned differently.

Agree/Disagree?
 

excalibur

Council Member
Good. Then lead him into the subject of Gerrymandering. Because that is where the real election power lays when it comes to Republicans being elected to Congress.

The House only, not Congress

I wager 99% of those whining about gerrymandering wouldn't if the Democrats ran the majority of statehouses, which is where the power to gerrymander comes from.
 

excalibur

Council Member
In 2016 presidential candidates didn't campaign based on the popular vote winning so you have no idea who would have won the popular vote as many liberals and conservatives in California and Texas for example stayed home because they knew what their state would be before it even started.

If it was based on the popular vote then voters would have come out in those states and the candidates would have campaigned differently.

Agree/Disagree?

Which is what Trump said a few years back, about campaigning differently if the popular vote elected the POTUS.
 

Spamature

President
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.
They actually have always has a solution to that. It's called the US senate. Where a minority of the population actually has oversized power in passing legislation, and in appointing members of the judicial branch. If anything people in sparsely populated rural areas have too much power over the rest of the country already.

Anyway I was responding to the accusations about my motivations in suggest a solution to the problem of having to cater to swing states and recounts because the stakes are always so high in elections where it is winner take all.
 

Spamature

President
The House only, not Congress

I wager 99% of those whining about gerrymandering wouldn't if the Democrats ran the majority of statehouses, which is where the power to gerrymander comes from.
A panel of retired judges draws the districts in my state even though there is an absolutely overwhelming Democratic majority our the state house.
 

excalibur

Council Member
A panel of retired judges draws the districts in my state even though there is an absolutely overwhelming Democratic majority our the state house.

I have no idea if that is factual; link it.

Some states have passed laws giving the power to a commission.

But note that someone still draws up districts. Why are retired judges or a commission pure as the driven snow?
 

Spamature

President
I have no idea if that is factual; link it.

Some states have passed laws giving the power to a commission.

But note that someone still draws up districts. Why are retired judges or a commission pure as the driven snow?
My mistake. It's a commission.

The California State Auditor collected nearly 5,000 completed applications out of over 30,000[25] for the commission. A three-member panel of auditors reviewed the applications and conducted interviews to establish a pool of 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and 20 applicants from neither major party. The panel submitted the list of 60 of the most qualified applicants to the Legislature on September 29, 2010.[23]

The Speaker of the California State Assembly, the President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate, and the minority party leaders in the Assembly and the Senate, as authorized by the law, jointly reduced the pools to 12 members in each pool. The Legislature submitted a list of applicants remaining in the pool on 12 November 2010.[23] The State Auditor then randomly drew three Democrats, three Republicans, and two applicants from neither major party to become commissioners on 18 November 2010.[23] Finally, these first eight commissioners selected six commissioners from the remaining applicants in the pools on 15 December 2010
 
This is the way it gets to stay while still being democratic in how it is exercised.
Yeah, I'm not interested in 'democratic' as much as I am representative. The direct 'democracy' so many on the left advocate for is simply mob rule that devolves into anarchy.

Don't forget that the proportional allocation could make trouble when the electoral college shows up to cast its votes. You could end up with a brokered president-elect old school style.
 

Spamature

President
Yeah, I'm not interested in 'democratic' as much as I am representative. The direct 'democracy' so many on the left advocate for is simply mob rule that devolves into anarchy.

Don't forget that the proportional allocation could make trouble when the electoral college shows up to cast its votes. You could end up with a brokered president-elect old school style.
Yeah I know, you'd rather we be ruled by hermits who has shunned society and an ever changing world. Or a king who the laws can not restrain. You've shown us that enough times already.

There is always a possibility of that brokered EC.

 

Spamature

President
Drinking again?
People who live in the middle of nowhere are in my estimation hermits who have shunned our ever changing world and have chosen to seclude themselves from it.

Letting a clearly guilty man off the hook, when he and his defense at trial says the Constitution allows him to do what ever he wants, is making him a king who is above the law.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
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.
Power to do what?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
In 2016 presidential candidates didn't campaign based on the popular vote winning so you have no idea who would have won the popular vote as many liberals and conservatives in California and Texas for example stayed home because they knew what their state would be before it even started.

If it was based on the popular vote then voters would have come out in those states and the candidates would have campaigned differently.

Agree/Disagree?
Exactly why I prefer the popular vote.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yeah, I'm not interested in 'democratic' as much as I am representative. The direct 'democracy' so many on the left advocate for is simply mob rule that devolves into anarchy.

Don't forget that the proportional allocation could make trouble when the electoral college shows up to cast its votes. You could end up with a brokered president-elect old school style.
Your claim of "Mob rule" is silly. It is still representative democracy. People will still have no real say in legislative matters.
 

oldgulph

Council Member
There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
 
Top