- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Middle Ground regarding EC and Popular Vote
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:07 am
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:07 am
With all the recent discussion about whether we should still use the EC or switch to the Popular Vote (which I do not support, the entire country should get to decide who is president, not just the coasts), I started to think, why not just compromise and do a system in the middle.
The US could still keep the EC and even keep the same numbers, but make it more like the primaries where instead of winner take all it is proportional. This would in theory give all voters more power in terms of electing the president while still keeping the electoral process equal and not giving all the power to the coasts.
Think of it this way, currently California is winner take all and the Republicans have no chance of winning California. That is despite the fact that California is probably around 40% Republican. Instead of the Democrats getting all Electoral Votes from California like they currently do, they would only get 60 percent of the Electoral Votes in California while Republicans would get 40 percent of the Electoral Vote.
Same thing in Texas, Democrats currently have no chance of winning Texas, despite that probably a good 35 percent of Texas votes Democrat. Instead of those votes not mattering at all, Republicans would only get 65 percent of those Electoral Votes instead of getting them all and the Democrats would get 35 percent of the Electoral Votes in Texas.
This would actually help voter turnout as well since in a lot of states a lot of voters probably don't even care because they know their vote means nothing (Republicans in California and New York, Democrats in Texas). This would let those voters actually have a say while still keeping balance between the coasts and the middle of the country.
The US could still keep the EC and even keep the same numbers, but make it more like the primaries where instead of winner take all it is proportional. This would in theory give all voters more power in terms of electing the president while still keeping the electoral process equal and not giving all the power to the coasts.
Think of it this way, currently California is winner take all and the Republicans have no chance of winning California. That is despite the fact that California is probably around 40% Republican. Instead of the Democrats getting all Electoral Votes from California like they currently do, they would only get 60 percent of the Electoral Votes in California while Republicans would get 40 percent of the Electoral Vote.
Same thing in Texas, Democrats currently have no chance of winning Texas, despite that probably a good 35 percent of Texas votes Democrat. Instead of those votes not mattering at all, Republicans would only get 65 percent of those Electoral Votes instead of getting them all and the Democrats would get 35 percent of the Electoral Votes in Texas.
This would actually help voter turnout as well since in a lot of states a lot of voters probably don't even care because they know their vote means nothing (Republicans in California and New York, Democrats in Texas). This would let those voters actually have a say while still keeping balance between the coasts and the middle of the country.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:11 am to IndependentVoter
Thanks for your well reasoned request.
No.
No.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:17 am to IndependentVoter
So use the EC to affirm the popular vote?
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:18 am to CoachChappy
Not all primaries do this and if they did Shillary would likely have lost the primary.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:26 am to IndependentVoter
By chance, are you willing to go on record here and state who you voted for?
I'm not sure why anyone is trying to appease the losing party. Just because they didn't win doesn't make the process unfair or tilted.
I'm not sure why anyone is trying to appease the losing party. Just because they didn't win doesn't make the process unfair or tilted.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:51 am to idlewatcher
Sure, I'll go on record, I voted for Donald Trump. I'll also go on record as saying I'm sick of millions of Republican voters being rendered worthless in California and New York just because the Bay Area and NYC are overwhelmingly SJW Democrat strongholds and you all should be as well.
Long term this system would actually hurt Democrats. Republicans would still win the small states by overwhelming margins and would actually be able to get Electoral College votes from large states that Republicans haven't gotten in years.
And yes as another poster said this system would've prevented Hillary Clinton from even winning her primary.
As a Republican are you not sick of starting every single Presidential election already down 84 - 0 in the current EC before we even know who the candidates are?
Long term this system would actually hurt Democrats. Republicans would still win the small states by overwhelming margins and would actually be able to get Electoral College votes from large states that Republicans haven't gotten in years.
And yes as another poster said this system would've prevented Hillary Clinton from even winning her primary.
As a Republican are you not sick of starting every single Presidential election already down 84 - 0 in the current EC before we even know who the candidates are?
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 7:53 am
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:53 am to IndependentVoter
quote:
I started to think, why not just compromise and do a system in the middle.
Nope. The EC works perfectly and as designed.
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 7:54 am
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:56 am to CoachChappy
quote:
use the EC to affirm the popular vote?
Eliminating winner take all does not do this. I can't fathom how anyone would think that. Winner take all dictates the will of the state popular vote on the minority party though. The EC was perverted early on to give more control to parties within a state.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:01 am to IndependentVoter
The States get to choose how they apportion votes.
The end.
The end.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:02 am to IndependentVoter
I've been in favor of a proportional EC for a long time. I think some things many people don't consider about the idea are:
1. All states become important for all candidates
2. Less populated/more conservative states still have the same safeguard against tyranny from the coasts since they're still allocated 2 EC votes not based on population (this is the actual safeguard, not winner-take-all)
3. The major parties would be more restrained and pulled to the center
4. Third parties could have an actual chance of growing
Incidentally, #4 is why it will never happen. The Dem/Rep oligarchy would never allow the laws to be passed.
1. All states become important for all candidates
2. Less populated/more conservative states still have the same safeguard against tyranny from the coasts since they're still allocated 2 EC votes not based on population (this is the actual safeguard, not winner-take-all)
3. The major parties would be more restrained and pulled to the center
4. Third parties could have an actual chance of growing
Incidentally, #4 is why it will never happen. The Dem/Rep oligarchy would never allow the laws to be passed.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:05 am to IndependentVoter
Can we first make voter registration and voter I.D. The Norm for all states so that we can all be 100% sure that only true citizen's of the US are determining our elected officials. Hillary won Call by 4 million votes over Trump.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:20 am to Jake88
quote:
Nope. The EC works perfectly and as designed.
Not quite.
It wasn't originally winner take all. Virginia started that to give itself more influence.
It also didn't start out with electors being expected to ratify the statewide popular vote.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:27 am to IndependentVoter
They just need to split the EC along congressional districts.
This would be a far more accurate way to do it and would give Trump parts of CA/NY/etc... and also give Hillary parts of TX,LA,AL,MS,etc...
This would be a far more accurate way to do it and would give Trump parts of CA/NY/etc... and also give Hillary parts of TX,LA,AL,MS,etc...
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:28 am to IndependentVoter
Yea that ain't happening
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:33 am to Huey Lewis
quote:
. All states become important for all candidates
2. Less populated/more conservative states still have the same safeguard against tyranny from the coasts since they're still allocated 2 EC votes not based on population (this is the actual safeguard, not winner-take-all)
3. The major parties would be more restrained and pulled to the center
4. Third parties could have an actual chance of growing
Exactly that. And I feel as if Trump supporters don't realize he would have won by a larger margin if it were proportional.
My biggest hang up with winner take all is the fact people that live in rural areas are disproportionately impacted by the popular vote in a state. Naturally, those in more populated areas have easier access to polling stations. With a proportional system (really how it originally started), the amount of people that reached the poll in each district would not impact the voice of that district. If a district goes blue/red/3rd party, at least they'll be represented and not have their will erased by the popular vote of the state.
It's as if people that support the current system don't realize it's really the popular vote controlling the minority within a state for the most part. It's illogical and needs to be addressed. The problem is consistently red/blue states don't want to give up that control.
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 8:37 am
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:43 am to IndependentVoter
Our two options are the electoral college and civil war. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:44 am to Bestbank Tiger
Thanks for the info. When did Va. begin to do that?
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:46 am to IndependentVoter
quote:You must be a dumocrat
why not just compromise
quote:Oh yeah. That confirms it.
IndependentVoter
57 posts! Yep! Alter for a libtard/snowflake or newb. Either way, GTFO.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:47 am to IndependentVoter
Keep EC
Winner of state gets the 2 Senate electors
Winner of individual congressional district gets that elector.
So, for Louisiana, Trump would have gotten 7 of Louisiana's 8 EC votes.
Winner of state gets the 2 Senate electors
Winner of individual congressional district gets that elector.
So, for Louisiana, Trump would have gotten 7 of Louisiana's 8 EC votes.
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 9:07 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News