- 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 7:26 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 7:53 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 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 8:27 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 8:43 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 8:46 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
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:59 am to IndependentVoter
Ill bite.
If they were divided proportionally based off districts or counties, yes.
A split of the votes based off the overall states totals? NO. would be the exact same as using straight popular vote.
That being said, Democrats would never agree to the proportional based off counties and districts.
There are 59 Counties in California. Trump won 25/59. Hillary won the popular vote overall in the state by 4 million, because of counties like San Fran where He only got 9% of the vote.
CA being worth 55 EC votes, do you really think the left would be willing to hand over 20 of those?
Ca.gov
There is no appeasing these people. If we made the vote strictly popular and Trump won again with a 5 million lead they would complain that that wasn't fair either.
If they were divided proportionally based off districts or counties, yes.
A split of the votes based off the overall states totals? NO. would be the exact same as using straight popular vote.
That being said, Democrats would never agree to the proportional based off counties and districts.
There are 59 Counties in California. Trump won 25/59. Hillary won the popular vote overall in the state by 4 million, because of counties like San Fran where He only got 9% of the vote.
CA being worth 55 EC votes, do you really think the left would be willing to hand over 20 of those?
Ca.gov
There is no appeasing these people. If we made the vote strictly popular and Trump won again with a 5 million lead they would complain that that wasn't fair either.
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 9:04 am
Posted on 12/26/16 at 9:00 am to IndependentVoter
Why don't we just make this not so relevant by reigning back in the power of the Executive Branch? Let California be California and Texas, Texas and then the President won't matter as much. I would say to all crying liberals, doesn't it suck that this election meant this much to you or anyone? How we pick isn't the problem.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 11:11 am to IndependentVoter
The way the EC is set up now is the middle ground. We all know if it's by popular vote only, there will never be another Republican president. If we break the EC down to Congressional districts, there will never be another Democrat president. The system we have is not perfect; no system is. The fact that the forefathers could foresee these problems is a credit to their genius.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 2:35 pm to IndependentVoter
Give the winner of the popular vote electoral votes, say 25 or so. Solves the problem of votes not counting in winner take all states. Even if you live in deep blue/red state, vote would be equally as important for pop vote. Gets rid of ties too.
Also give, American territories one vote apiece, as they are Americans and should be able to have their vote count for President.
Also give, American territories one vote apiece, as they are Americans and should be able to have their vote count for President.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 3:49 pm to IndependentVoter
Your idea = the popular vote. There is no difference.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 6:43 pm to IndependentVoter
Anybody that argues against the electoral college is a moron. It's the glue that holds this country together. There's nothing to keep states or groups of states from splitting off if they feel underrepresented.
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:44 pm to IndependentVoter
The United States doesn't get to make that decision. It is completely up to each individual state to do it.
Although I would love for California and New York to do it as a test case.
It would be the last time a Dem ever got elected President until they decided to change it back.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News