- 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
re: Electoral college suggestion presented to me from a progressive thinker
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:13 am to ApexTiger
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:13 am to ApexTiger
We’re a nation of states electing a president, not a nation of individual citizens. The rules were known from the beginning and Trump played them better. Hillary doesn’t get a participation trophy for padding her vote count where it didn’t matter. What’s being suggested is simply more popular vote bs.
0
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:16 am to ApexTiger
quote:
He suggested to me that we should grant Electoral votes based on how the candidates did in the state elections according to percentages of victory, "so the value of the individual voter is counted in the National election"
That idea has been there for years and years. He is just regurgitating someone else’s thought that has also been discussed many times before.
Leave the EC alone.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:18 am to weagle99
This entire line of thinking on the electoral college is nothing more then reverse engineering a desired result. Liberals don't actually support this particular electoral college view. They're just pissed the election didn't go their way and they figured out that this method it would have. of course if 8 years from now they lost an election under this method they would immediately complain about it
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:22 am to TOKEN
quote:
Your liberal friend is bloody smart.
No, actually he's stupid. But I can see where you'd think otherwise.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:23 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
Two states already do this. None of the others have any desire to go to this system.
Which 2?
Feedback on how that's working?
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:26 am to ApexTiger
That's not a change to the EC, that's just doing away with winner take all rules that states installed after the EC was established.
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 6:57 am
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:36 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
Can you imagine what congressional district lines will look like if this was the case? Look how they changed Pennsylvania’s to get the results dems wanted in 2018. Of course that was not “gerrymandering” because it wasn’t beneficial to Republicans.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:39 am to ApexTiger
quote:It is up to the states. California and NY should set the example
Electoral college suggestion presented to me from a progressive thinker
Posted on 2/11/19 at 6:43 am to ApexTiger
Here is my counter proposal:
2 Votes go to the statewide winner.
The remainder goes proportionally to the candidates rounded to the nearest whole electoral vote, but not exceeding the state’s allocation.
So in your NC example:
2 for Trump for winning the state
The remaining 13 votes split
7 for Trump to 6 for Hillary.
This system would still keep an advantage for winning a state, but it also creates some balance on the large states. Liberal states like NY and CA would never go for this as it would split their liberal block.
New York for example:
Clinton 58.8%
Trump 37.5%
Clinton would get 2 votes for winning the state. The remaining 27 would go like this: 16 for Hillary and 10 for Trump. The last vote would go to Gary Johnson but with only 2.3 percent, that comes out to 6 tenths of a vote. So it would depend on how the law is written to determine if this really would be for him or an uncommitted Electoral Vote.
2 Votes go to the statewide winner.
The remainder goes proportionally to the candidates rounded to the nearest whole electoral vote, but not exceeding the state’s allocation.
So in your NC example:
2 for Trump for winning the state
The remaining 13 votes split
7 for Trump to 6 for Hillary.
This system would still keep an advantage for winning a state, but it also creates some balance on the large states. Liberal states like NY and CA would never go for this as it would split their liberal block.
New York for example:
Clinton 58.8%
Trump 37.5%
Clinton would get 2 votes for winning the state. The remaining 27 would go like this: 16 for Hillary and 10 for Trump. The last vote would go to Gary Johnson but with only 2.3 percent, that comes out to 6 tenths of a vote. So it would depend on how the law is written to determine if this really would be for him or an uncommitted Electoral Vote.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:10 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
It would increase it, the question is by how much.
It would definitely do away with the Texas mantra “meh, I didn’t vote bc my vote didn’t matter”
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:15 am to ApexTiger
...and when all these changes proposed by the Left end up causing the defeat of another "chosen one", they will suggest changing them again....
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:21 am to stuntman
quote:
I know it's kind of off topic, but what we really need in our electoral system is poll tests.
A five question pass/fail civics test on each ballot would do the trick.
frick that. Make it a poll tax.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:27 am to ApexTiger
Tell your "intelligent, progressive" friend that his side should run better candidates so they wouldn't have to obsess over the mechanics.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:32 am to EA6B
quote:
the electoral college was designed to insure all states have representation in electing the president.
Key words there. States as a whole elect presidents, not the individuals of that state themselves. The way it's written, it makes perfect sense to me.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:35 am to ApexTiger
quote:
In Carolina for example, Trump won 49.6% , Hillary 46%
NC gets 15 EC votes
in this suggestion, Trump gets 8 EC votes, Hillary gets 7 versus all 15 going to Trump for North Carolina
Why even have the EC if it's going to essentially mirror the popular vote?
There is a reason the EC exists, it's to balance the power, or lack there of, of states.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:37 am to TOKEN
quote:
Compassionate Conservative
Tough love can be compassionate.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:41 am to ApexTiger
Just go with the National popular vote already. Whomever gets the most votes wins.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:45 am to Johnpettigrew
Good point. There are two nearly identical cases in the USSC dealing with gerrymandering, one case favors democrats, the other, republicans. The court can't rule in favor of once and against the other, but I'll sit back and wait.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:49 am to ApexTiger
so when they lose an election under those rules, will we be changing the rules again?
Posted on 2/11/19 at 7:52 am to ApexTiger
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News