Electoral College idiocy

[mikalalas]

Until the gerrymanders in states like WI get fixed, no way. If we go by district, I don’t want to see a candidate that’s gets 40% of the vote in a state getting 70% of the EV for a state.

That's why I like Maine's system of apportioning out the Electoral College Voter, votes according to the percentage of the states vote that they win.

Winner take all, is not as good as the way Maine does it.

That said winner take all Electoral College is still better then popular vote.

Glad that Electoral College can only be changed by constitutional amendment, or calling a gathering, convention of the states, etc.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Loyal buddy, you might want to get that bad boy checked out ... preferably by a buxom nurse in her early- to mid-20's

I actually prefer older women. They know more and are more appreciative.

 

[mikalalas]

Major metro areas already control the direction. Check out these maps. The 2nd one showing the margin of victory in each county is most telling. In 2020, Trump won a lot more counties, but by small margins. Biden pretty much only won the metro counties, but by huge margins. Biden took only 13 counties in Washington, but won the whole state. He won 9 counties in Oregon, but the whole state. 5 counties in Arizona...whole state. Looks like 18 counties in Texas, and came close to turning it blue.

And that is where I say there's room to improve the electoral college system. Make it so it's not winner-take-all. Assign electoral votes based on winner in each congressional district, the same way Maine and Nebraska do. In 2020, Biden took 57% of the popular vote in Washington and 56% in Oregon, but won all 19 electoral votes (12 WA, 7 OR). If it was done by district, Biden would have gotten 9 from Washington and 6 from Oregon, Trump would have taken 3 and 1. In California, Trump would take 7 votes. Arizona was a battleground, and Biden took all 11 votes even though he only won by 0.3%. Split by district, it would have been 7 to 4.

Just with those 4 states, instead of being 85-0 for Biden, splitting by district makes it 70-15. Doesn't seem like a lot on its face, but if all the states are doing the same thing, it changes the election strategy, de-emphasizes the metro areas, and possibly changes results.

THIS! ^^^^^

 

[95coug]

Don't link it to districts, gotta make it statewide totals. Your method would not be consistent with other smaller states and we need consistency between states.

Using statewide totals doesn’t make sense, because then the EC is just a direct proxy for popular vote. Might as well scrap it.
The whole intent of the EC was to prevent the urban areas from dominating, so it’s intended to give the more rural areas a disproportionate representation. We could do this with every state. The rest of the states could award an electoral vote for each district, plus two for the winner of the statewide popular vote. The smallest states (Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont) would not see a change under this, because they only have one district, so they would still be winner take all.

Maine and Nebraska already follow this method, we just need to change 42 more states

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Using statewide totals doesn’t make sense, because then the EC is just a direct proxy for popular vote. Might as well scrap it.
The whole intent of the EC was to prevent the urban areas from dominating, so it’s intended to give the more rural areas a disproportionate representation. We could do this with every state. The rest of the states could award an electoral vote for each district, plus two for the winner of the statewide popular vote. The smallest states (Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont) would not see a change under this, because they only have one district, so they would still be winner take all.

Maine and Nebraska already follow this method, we just need to change 42 more states

I don't know that your characterization of the genesis of the Electoral College is accurate. Don't know how many "urban" areas there were in 1789. And 250 years later, who gives a F?

You lemmings are just killing me. Why the F don't any of you subscribe to the democratic process? F the arbitrary state, county and district lines. Is there not one other denizen of this psycho ward we call WW who feels that democracy is the way to go? A majority of Americans want to get rid of the Electoral College.

And your comment - Using statewide totals doesn’t make sense, because then the EC is just a direct proxy for popular vote. Might as well scrap it.

Oh gee - why would the popular vote matter? Well it matters in every single election in the US except one. I'm going to post this a million F-ing times. What is wrong with you people?

Ok - stepping away from the computer.

Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikalalas]

I don't know that your characterization of the genesis of the Electoral College is accurate. Don't know how many "urban" areas there were in 1789. And 250 years later, who gives a F?

You lemmings are just killing me. Why the F don't any of you subscribe to the democratic process? F the arbitrary state, county and district lines. Is there not one other denizen of this psycho ward we call WW who feels that democracy is the way to go? A majority of Americans want to get rid of the Electoral College.

And your comment - Using statewide totals doesn’t make sense, because then the EC is just a direct proxy for popular vote. Might as well scrap it.

Oh gee - why would the popular vote matter? Well it matters in every single election in the US except one. I'm going to post this a million F-ing times. What is wrong with you people?

Ok - stepping away from the computer.

Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New York City back then was still a RELATIVELY BIG CITY COMPARATIVELY to the rest of the colonies.

And the colonials DID NOT WANT NEW YORK CITY, etc, BOSSING THEM AROUND, TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.

Your just FLAT OUT WRONG, AND DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

 

[Coug90]

New York City back then was still a RELATIVELY BIG CITY COMPARATIVELY to the rest of the colonies.

And the colonials DID NOT WANT NEW YORK CITY, etc, BOSSING THEM AROUND, TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.

Your just FLAT OUT WRONG, AND DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

Your caps game is so much more impactful when you use correct grammar Mik.

 

[Stretch 74]

I don't know that your characterization of the genesis of the Electoral College is accurate. Don't know how many "urban" areas there were in 1789. And 250 years later, who gives a F?

You lemmings are just killing me. Why the F don't any of you subscribe to the democratic process? F the arbitrary state, county and district lines. Is there not one other denizen of this psycho ward we call WW who feels that democracy is the way to go? A majority of Americans want to get rid of the Electoral College.

And your comment - Using statewide totals doesn’t make sense, because then the EC is just a direct proxy for popular vote. Might as well scrap it.

Oh gee - why would the popular vote matter? Well it matters in every single election in the US except one. I'm going to post this a million F-ing times. What is wrong with you people?

Ok - stepping away from the computer.

Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The only thing wrong with 'us people' is that we disagree with you. We ARE allowed to have our own opinions, ya know. And just because all the other elections run as a strict democracy doesn't mean that we should throw out the wisdom of the framework constructed by the founding fathers.

Here's a couple football analogies for you. Let's say that someone wants to change the system for deciding the winners in football games. After all, allocating 6 points for a TD is so arbitrary and outdated, so we should change it to having the winner being decided by awarding the "W" to the team with the most yards gained. Would you be on board with that or should we stay with what has worked well for so long?

Weren't you one that mentioned recently that you liked the old system of conference alliances for the bowl games, before they started having the playoffs? Well, they changed the system "because every other sport had a playoff" and it diminished the pageantry and meaning of the bowl games. It is what it is, but I am one that would prefer it had remained the same. Greed was the driver, all about the money, sadly.

And allocating EC votes from the statewide totals is NOT a direct proxy for the popular vote because the amount of votes does not exactly fall on the dividing line for the number of EC votes per state. Some states just barely had enough people to get their last EC vote, and other states (it happened to NY) fall just a few people short of gaining another EC vote.

BTW, a representative democracy actually IS a democratic system, it just is NOT a strict democracy.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The only thing wrong with 'us people' is that we disagree with you. We ARE allowed to have our own opinions, ya know. And just because all the other elections run as a strict democracy doesn't mean that we should throw out the wisdom of the framework constructed by the founding fathers.

Oh Geezus. The wisdom of a bunch of well-meaning guys 250 years ago? As you say, ALL other elections are run as a democracy (popular vote). You guys slay me.

 

[95coug]

Oh Geezus. The wisdom of a bunch of well-meaning guys 250 years ago? As you say, ALL other elections are run as a democracy (popular vote). You guys slay me.

None of the other elections are for an office that represents the whole country

Going strictly popular vote would magnify the existing problem, and make it so whichever candidate can carry the 8-10 biggest cities will win. Nobody else will matter.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

None of the other elections are for an office that represents the whole country

Going strictly popular vote would magnify the existing problem, and make it so whichever candidate can carry the 8-10 biggest cities will win. Nobody else will matter.

So exactly what is the existing problem? And so what if the big cities (which I hate) win? Cuz majority rules? You guys just f-ing kill me. Oh Gawd, let's not let the American people decide the most important election there is?

F-ing Trump got beat badly in the popular vote (Hillary beat him too). But because of a few closely called states, he was close to winning the electoral college vote.

I just don't get you guys. F#$%. The popular vote of the people doesn't matter. Arbitrary state lines determine who becomes President?

"None of the other elections are for an office that represents the whole country"

So f-ing what? Let's make the most important election in the country differ from EVERY OTHER election at ANY level?

You guys just f-ing kill me. The popular vote, the cornerstone of democracy, doesn't matter. All that matters is the BS system that was instituted 250 years ago. And that most Americans want to abolish. Oh Gawd, let's not put that up for a vote of the people.

And enough of this "we are a republic, not a democracy" shit. You guys are nuts.

No wonder we are so F-ed up as a country.

 

[longtimecoug]

New York City back then was still a RELATIVELY BIG CITY COMPARATIVELY to the rest of the colonies.

And the colonials DID NOT WANT NEW YORK CITY, etc, BOSSING THEM AROUND, TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.

Your just FLAT OUT WRONG, AND DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

ignorant comments from an ignoramous, back on ignore

 

[mikalalas]

So exactly what is the existing problem? And so what if the big cities (which I hate) win? Cuz majority rules? You guys just f-ing kill me. Oh Gawd, let's not let the American people decide the most important election there is?

F-ing Trump got beat badly in the popular vote (Hillary beat him too). But because of a few closely called states, he was close to winning the electoral college vote.

I just don't get you guys. F#$%. The popular vote of the people doesn't matter. Arbitrary state lines determine who becomes President?

"None of the other elections are for an office that represents the whole country"

So f-ing what? Let's make the most important election in the country differ from EVERY OTHER election at ANY level?

You guys just f-ing kill me. The popular vote, the cornerstone of democracy, doesn't matter. All that matters is the BS system that was instituted 250 years ago. And that most Americans want to abolish. Oh Gawd, let's not put that up for a vote of the people.

And enough of this "we are a republic, not a democracy" shit. You guys are nuts.

No wonder we are so F-ed up as a country.

It's you that are not reading, listening, thinking, having a OPEN MIND, not being logical, being CLOSED MINDED, because you stubbornly think your right, and because we DISAGREE with you.

And you resort to name calling, insults, are rude, crass, etc, which makes you lose the debate, as those who resort to such tactics are losers who automatically lose the debate, because they are so wrong, with nothing to back up what they say, that they must resort to name calling, insults.


If you had your way with a popular vote, and the 9 biggest cities determined who won the presidential election, the rest of the country would not matter, and their VALUES, BELIEFS, would NOT matter, and the BIG CITY VALUES, BELIEFS, would matter over the rest of the country.

The whole country would become a BIGGER version of WA, where NEW YORK, LA, CHICAGO, etc, would CONTROL the whole country just like King County, Seattle, CONTROL, BOSS around the Whole of WA.

I'm assuming that if you live in Eastern WA, that you don't like King County, Seattle CONTROLLING, BOSSING, HAVING TYRANNY OVER EASTERN WA. You would be ok with that type of thing, dynamic, situation happening to the whole country, and New York, etc, having TYRANNICAL CONTROL over the WHOLE COUNTRY, via a popular vote?

Another example.

Imagine if the 10 biggest cities in USA, were bigots, racist, hated transgenders, gays, blacks, etc, and the rest of the country were NOT.

Under a popular vote system, the HATERS, BIGOTS in the 10 biggest cities, would determine who became president, and that President would give them what they want, and the 10 Biggest Cities would have TYRANNICAL CONTROL OVER the rest of the country and Gays, etc, and would pass laws via the President representing them, who is also RACIST, that would persecute gays, outlaw being gay etc.

The gays would not have fair, equal representation.

The Electoral College STOPS, PREVENTS A TYRANNY of the MAJORITY, STOPS, PREVENTS the MAJORITY from pushing, forcing their values, beliefs, etc, on everyone else.

Back in Colonial days, New York, tried to control, boss around the Colonial farmers. Today BIG CITIES like NEW YORK, are still trying to control, boss around farmers.

The Colonial Farmers didn't like New York telling them what to do, so that's why they wanted, got the Electoral College, before they joined the Revolutionary War.

Be careful what you wish for want.

You may get your popular vote.

And if you do get your popular vote, you may get persecuted, tyrannized, etc.

You don't seem like you are a person who likes to be dictatorially bossed around, told what to do, forced into doing something you don't want to do by the Majority.

That might happen to you via a popular vote.

If you don't get that, then while we can lead you to water, we can't make you drink and understand, and so we will have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

 

[longtimecoug]

It's you that are not reading, listening, thinking, having a OPEN MIND, not being logical, being CLOSED MINDED, because you stubbornly think your right, and because we DISAGREE with you.

And you resort to name calling, insults, are rude, crass, etc, which makes you lose the debate, as those who resort to such tactics are losers who automatically lose the debate, because they are so wrong, with nothing to back up what they say, that they must resort to name calling, insults.


If you had your way with a popular vote, and the 9 biggest cities determined who won the presidential election, the rest of the country would not matter, and their VALUES, BELIEFS, would NOT matter, and the BIG CITY VALUES, BELIEFS, would matter over the rest of the country.

The whole country would become a BIGGER version of WA, where NEW YORK, LA, CHICAGO, etc, would CONTROL the whole country just like King County, Seattle, CONTROL, BOSS around the Whole of WA.

I'm assuming that if you live in Eastern WA, that you don't like King County, Seattle CONTROLLING, BOSSING, HAVING TYRANNY OVER EASTERN WA. You would be ok with that type of thing, dynamic, situation happening to the whole country, and New York, etc, having TYRANNICAL CONTROL over the WHOLE COUNTRY, via a popular vote?

Another example.

Imagine if the 10 biggest cities in USA, were bigots, racist, hated transgenders, gays, blacks, etc, and the rest of the country were NOT.

Under a popular vote system, the HATERS, BIGOTS in the 10 biggest cities, would determine who became president, and that President would give them what they want, and the 10 Biggest Cities would have TYRANNICAL CONTROL OVER the rest of the country and Gays, etc, and would pass laws via the President representing them, who is also RACIST, that would persecute gays, outlaw being gay etc.

The gays would not have fair, equal representation.

The Electoral College STOPS, PREVENTS A TYRANNY of the MAJORITY, STOPS, PREVENTS the MAJORITY from pushing, forcing their values, beliefs, etc, on everyone else.

Back in Colonial days, New York, tried to control, boss around the Colonial farmers. Today BIG CITIES like NEW YORK, are still trying to control, boss around farmers.

The Colonial Farmers didn't like New York telling them what to do, so that's why they wanted, got the Electoral College, before they joined the Revolutionary War.

Be careful what you wish for want.

You may get your popular vote.

And if you do get your popular vote, you may get persecuted, tyrannized, etc.

You don't seem like you are a person who likes to be dictatorially bossed around, told what to do, forced into doing something you don't want to do by the Majority.

That might happen to you via a popular vote.

If you don't get that, then while we can lead you to water, we can't make you drink and understand, and so we will have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Why should the minority rule?

 

[Coug90]

Why should the minority rule?

Because he’s in the minority

 

[mikalalas]

Why should the minority rule?

Ok IF the Majority are RACIST, BIGOTS, HATERS, KKK, NEO NAZI's, White Supremacist, Proud Boys, etc, then they as the Majority, would RULE over Jews, Blacks, Gays, etc.

In the 1930's, 40's, 50's, the JIM CROW laws were passed by a POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM, and it happened because the MAJORITY, were KKK, haters, racist, bigots, or if not the majority, at least was the VOTING MAJORITY, due to voter intimidation.

If replaced the Electoral College, with popular vote, combined with If the BIGGEST Cities were to become 97% KKK, Neo NAZI's, racist, bigots, etc, then they could elect a President, that would try to pass Jim Crow type laws against Jews, Blacks, Gays, the MINORITY(S).

That is the danger of a popular vote system.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent that.

The Electoral College is designed so that IF the BIGGEST CITIES are 97% KKK, etc, AND the rest of the country, farmers, minority were good people, etc, that the BIGGEST CITIES, would not be able to elect a Hitler President.

Remember Nazi Germany was a DEMOCRACY, where the Nazi party became the MAJORITY because of the Charm, popularity of the Nazi party. It was LATER that they started FORCING PEOPLE to be NAZI's. In the beginning, people liked the NAZI's, and the NAZI's, in the beginning, had the Majority, that were NAZI's, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT HITLER.

If Germany had had a Electoral College system, Hitler might not have been elected.

Whenever you have a MAJORITY based democracy, there is a chance that the Majority will become TYRANNICAL, and pass Jim Crow laws, elect HITLERS, etc.

That's why a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and a Electoral College system is better then a popular vote system.

And the Founding Fathers knew that, and that's why the Founding Fathers made the USA a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, instead of a popular vote democracy, and why the FOUNDING FATHERS created the Electoral College system, and why there are CHECKS AND BALANCES in the government to check both the Electoral College system, and the popular vote system.

 

[spongeandshoot]

None of the other elections are for an office that represents the whole country

Going strictly popular vote would magnify the existing problem, and make it so whichever candidate can carry the 8-10 biggest cities will win. Nobody else will matter.

Thank you. A voice of reason.

 

[mikalalas]

Because he’s in the minority

Not saying the minority should rule, only that they should have fair, equal, representation.

Having fair, equal representation, is NOT ruling.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

That shouldn't be able to happen. They get 1 point for each congressional district they win, and the winner of the statewide popular vote gets 1-2 more votes. Washington has 10 districts, 1 vote each. Popular vote winner gets 2 additional. So the gerrymandering would be for single votes.

Why over-complicate this? One thing that is clear to compare and sure to be of equal value, is one person, one vote. I already explained this earlier. It moderates candidates and gives incentive for a GOP candidate to appeal to voters in states they would otherwise not. In a state like California a GOP presidential candidate can pick off over 6 million votes in a bad year.

Republicans realize that this current system is the only thing giving them a shot at the white house. It didn't use to be that way. Why? Because they are increasingly outside the mainstream on the big issues. They run to the right of the average American. Do they moderate? No. Just keep exploiting a terribly archaic system.

It would be interesting to see a state-by-state analysis of your idea through the years. It just MIGHT make things more representative of the nations overall wishes. Maybe W wouldn't have beaten Gore and trump may not have beat clinton.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

That's why I like Maine's system of apportioning out the Electoral College Voter, votes according to the percentage of the states vote that they win.

Winner take all, is not as good as the way Maine does it.

That said winner take all Electoral College is still better then popular vote.

Glad that Electoral College can only be changed by constitutional amendment, or calling a gathering, convention of the states, etc.

Don't you see that if you extrapolate that Maine system out to every single state, you're (almost certainly) going to get the exact same result as if you simply counted the popular vote? (With appropriate rounding, of course)

Again, take California. In the last election, 17.1 million votes were cast. Biden won 63.5% (11.1 million votes). Under an apportion system he would have grabbed 30 of the 45 (2/3's) of the EC votes - pretty much what 11.1 million out of 17.1 million is.

However, doing that in all states means you must do away with the 270 threshold because Biden only would have had 232 - still a majority.

We know why Republicans are not for changing this system. Their policies do not appeal as much to the mainstream: abortion, gun control, taxes, health care. Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Not saying the minority should rule, only that they should have fair, equal, representation.

Having fair, equal representation, is NOT ruling.

One person, one vote is fair and equal. What you are advocating is neither. Taihtsat

 

[Coug90]

Don't you see that if you extrapolate that Maine system out to every single state, you're (almost certainly) going to get the exact same result as if you simply counted the popular vote? (With appropriate rounding, of course)

Again, take California. In the last election, 17.1 million votes were cast. Biden won 63.5% (11.1 million votes). Under an apportion system he would have grabbed 30 of the 45 (2/3's) of the EC votes - pretty much what 11.1 million out of 17.1 million is.

However, doing that in all states means you must do away with the 270 threshold because Biden only would have had 232 - still a majority.

We know why Republicans are not for changing this system. Their policies do not appeal as much to the mainstream: abortion, gun control, taxes, health care. Taihtsat

Perhaps even more important, appeals even less to the newest batch of voters, while voters who love these policies are dying off. Which is why we see a mad scramble to change the rules.

 

[95coug]

Why over-complicate this? One thing that is clear to compare and sure to be of equal value, is one person, one vote. I already explained this earlier. It moderates candidates and gives incentive for a GOP candidate to appeal to voters in states they would otherwise not. In a state like California a GOP presidential candidate can pick off over 6 million votes in a bad year.

Republicans realize that this current system is the only thing giving them a shot at the white house. It didn't use to be that way. Why? Because they are increasingly outside the mainstream on the big issues. They run to the right of the average American. Do they moderate? No. Just keep exploiting a terribly archaic system.

It would be interesting to see a state-by-state analysis of your idea through the years. It just MIGHT make things more representative of the nations overall wishes. Maybe W wouldn't have beaten Gore and trump may not have beat clinton.

I don’t remember which map I saw it on, might have been the link I posted earlier, but somewhere there was a map that colored districts nationwide based on proportion of red and blue. Nearly the entire country was shades of purple. Major cities were blue, super-rural areas like eastern Montana were the most red. Kind of visually depicted how far off the main the republicans are now.

It also showed that going on pure popular vote likely would have the cities dictating direction. Democrats have massive majorities in those areas, among huge voter numbers. The places where republicans have big majorities have very few total votes. Under that election system, policy for the whole country would move to the left fringe. Forget sanctuary cities, we’d have a sanctuary country.

Here’s a couple of additional ideas of election reform though, assuming that the EC system doesn’t go away:

• Eliminate the winner-take-all approach, as described previously
• Eliminate the 270 vote requirement. Simple majority wins. Under the current system, we could see a scenario where candidate 1 had 265 votes, candidate 2 had 235, and a 3rd party candidate had 38. Because nobody won 270 votes, that election would then go to the House, where they could elect any of the 3. Theoretically, we could then end up with a president who only won 38 votes. This has never happened, but sooner or later we’re going to see a significant 3rd party candidate just because of the disillusionment of voters with the big parties. And, even if that 3rd party was the biggest vote-getter, the House is never going to elect them.
• Revert to the old method - eliminate running mates and presidential tickets. Highest vote getter is president, second place is VP. Today, this would be disaster and guaranteed gridlock. But, I think it would force candidates to moderate.

 

[BSpike76]

Don't you see that if you extrapolate that Maine system out to every single state, you're (almost certainly) going to get the exact same result as if you simply counted the popular vote? (With appropriate rounding, of course)

Again, take California. In the last election, 17.1 million votes were cast. Biden won 63.5% (11.1 million votes). Under an apportion system he would have grabbed 30 of the 45 (2/3's) of the EC votes - pretty much what 11.1 million out of 17.1 million is.

However, doing that in all states means you must do away with the 270 threshold because Biden only would have had 232 - still a majority.

We know why Republicans are not for changing this system. Their policies do not appeal as much to the mainstream: abortion, gun control, taxes, health care. Taihtsat

Who got the other 306?

 

[95coug]

Don't you see that if you extrapolate that Maine system out to every single state, you're (almost certainly) going to get the exact same result as if you simply counted the popular vote? (With appropriate rounding, of course)

Again, take California. In the last election, 17.1 million votes were cast. Biden won 63.5% (11.1 million votes). Under an apportion system he would have grabbed 30 of the 45 (2/3's) of the EC votes - pretty much what 11.1 million out of 17.1 million is.

However, doing that in all states means you must do away with the 270 threshold because Biden only would have had 232 - still a majority.

We know why Republicans are not for changing this system. Their policies do not appeal as much to the mainstream: abortion, gun control, taxes, health care. Taihtsat

Your numbers are off - California had 55 electoral votes in 2020, not 45.

It might not make a big difference in results, but it has to change strategy, especially in battleground states. And, the Maine/Nebraska system isn’t strict apportionment. It’s one vote per district, 2 votes to the overall winner of the statewide popular vote.
So, in 2020 California, it would have been 48-7 for Biden. Trump would have gotten 7 electoral votes for the districts he won, Biden would have gotten 46 for the district he won plus 2 for the popular vote. That ends up as 87.2% of the electoral vote.

I think the most appealing part of this system is that it doesn’t totally discount the minority opinion. Under the current approach, Biden took all 55 electoral votes with 63.5% of the popular vote. This means that 36.5% of votes cast were completely meaningless. And this was in a state that was solid blue. In most states, especially the battlegrounds, it’s closer to 50% of votes are meaningless because of the winner take all system. That’s what convinces voters that their vote doesn’t matter - because often, it doesn’t. Changing that to the Maine/Nebraska model might re-engage some of those voters who just don’t show up now…and that should move our elections toward the middle.

 

[spongeandshoot]

Don't you see that if you extrapolate that Maine system out to every single state, you're (almost certainly) going to get the exact same result as if you simply counted the popular vote? (With appropriate rounding, of course)

Again, take California. In the last election, 17.1 million votes were cast. Biden won 63.5% (11.1 million votes). Under an apportion system he would have grabbed 30 of the 45 (2/3's) of the EC votes - pretty much what 11.1 million out of 17.1 million is.

However, doing that in all states means you must do away with the 270 threshold because Biden only would have had 232 - still a majority.

We know why Republicans are not for changing this system. Their policies do not appeal as much to the mainstream: abortion, gun control, taxes, health care. Taihtsat

Lax on crime, failure to prosecute crime, open borders, open air drug markets, men in womens locker rooms also do not appeal to the main stream...at least in middle America. Only the large coastal cities.

Thats all I have to say about that.

 

[BSpike76]

Your numbers are off - California had 55 electoral votes in 2020, not 45.

It might not make a big difference in results, but it has to change strategy, especially in battleground states. And, the Maine/Nebraska system isn’t strict apportionment. It’s one vote per district, 2 votes to the overall winner of the statewide popular vote.
So, in 2020 California, it would have been 48-7 for Biden. Trump would have gotten 7 electoral votes for the districts he won, Biden would have gotten 46 for the district he won plus 2 for the popular vote. That ends up as 87.2% of the electoral vote.

I think the most appealing part of this system is that it doesn’t totally discount the minority opinion. Under the current approach, Biden took all 55 electoral votes with 63.5% of the popular vote. This means that 36.5% of votes cast were completely meaningless. And this was in a state that was solid blue. In most states, especially the battlegrounds, it’s closer to 50% of votes are meaningless because of the winner take all system. That’s what convinces voters that their vote doesn’t matter - because often, it doesn’t. Changing that to the Maine/Nebraska model might re-engage some of those voters who just don’t show up now…and that should move our elections toward the middle.

Again, only if the districts are fairly apportioned. NC and WI are close to 50:50 states, but Rs would get 60-70% of the districts due to gerrymanders. This would still make votes of a lot of people meaningless.

 

[mikalalas]

Your numbers are off - California had 55 electoral votes in 2020, not 45.

It might not make a big difference in results, but it has to change strategy, especially in battleground states. And, the Maine/Nebraska system isn’t strict apportionment. It’s one vote per district, 2 votes to the overall winner of the statewide popular vote.
So, in 2020 California, it would have been 48-7 for Biden. Trump would have gotten 7 electoral votes for the districts he won, Biden would have gotten 46 for the district he won plus 2 for the popular vote. That ends up as 87.2% of the electoral vote.

I think the most appealing part of this system is that it doesn’t totally discount the minority opinion. Under the current approach, Biden took all 55 electoral votes with 63.5% of the popular vote. This means that 36.5% of votes cast were completely meaningless. And this was in a state that was solid blue. In most states, especially the battlegrounds, it’s closer to 50% of votes are meaningless because of the winner take all system. That’s what convinces voters that their vote doesn’t matter - because often, it doesn’t. Changing that to the Maine/Nebraska model might re-engage some of those voters who just don’t show up now…and that should move our elections toward the middle.

This!^^^^^

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Who got the other 306?

You're right. I goofed in basing it off of 435 instead of 538

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I don’t remember which map I saw it on, might have been the link I posted earlier, but somewhere there was a map that colored districts nationwide based on proportion of red and blue. Nearly the entire country was shades of purple. Major cities were blue, super-rural areas like eastern Montana were the most red. Kind of visually depicted how far off the main the republicans are now.

It also showed that going on pure popular vote likely would have the cities dictating direction. Democrats have massive majorities in those areas, among huge voter numbers. The places where republicans have big majorities have very few total votes. Under that election system, policy for the whole country would move to the left fringe. Forget sanctuary cities, we’d have a sanctuary country.

Here’s a couple of additional ideas of election reform though, assuming that the EC system doesn’t go away:

• Eliminate the winner-take-all approach, as described previously
• Eliminate the 270 vote requirement. Simple majority wins. Under the current system, we could see a scenario where candidate 1 had 265 votes, candidate 2 had 235, and a 3rd party candidate had 38. Because nobody won 270 votes, that election would then go to the House, where they could elect any of the 3. Theoretically, we could then end up with a president who only won 38 votes. This has never happened, but sooner or later we’re going to see a significant 3rd party candidate just because of the disillusionment of voters with the big parties. And, even if that 3rd party was the biggest vote-getter, the House is never going to elect them.
• Revert to the old method - eliminate running mates and presidential tickets. Highest vote getter is president, second place is VP. Today, this would be disaster and guaranteed gridlock. But, I think it would force candidates to moderate.

It also showed that going on pure popular vote likely would have the cities dictating direction.

This thinking seems to be where the confusion lies. These aren't "cities" as much as these are places where individual citizens/voters live together. Cities don't do the electing. Individual voters do.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Your numbers are off - California had 55 electoral votes in 2020, not 45.

It might not make a big difference in results, but it has to change strategy, especially in battleground states. And, the Maine/Nebraska system isn’t strict apportionment. It’s one vote per district, 2 votes to the overall winner of the statewide popular vote.
So, in 2020 California, it would have been 48-7 for Biden. Trump would have gotten 7 electoral votes for the districts he won, Biden would have gotten 46 for the district he won plus 2 for the popular vote. That ends up as 87.2% of the electoral vote.

I think the most appealing part of this system is that it doesn’t totally discount the minority opinion. Under the current approach, Biden took all 55 electoral votes with 63.5% of the popular vote. This means that 36.5% of votes cast were completely meaningless. And this was in a state that was solid blue. In most states, especially the battlegrounds, it’s closer to 50% of votes are meaningless because of the winner take all system. That’s what convinces voters that their vote doesn’t matter - because often, it doesn’t. Changing that to the Maine/Nebraska model might re-engage some of those voters who just don’t show up now…and that should move our elections toward the middle.

You right. Damn, I'm living in the 70's I guess. Biden would've only got 35 of the 55. But that's more reflective of the actual will of the voter in California than the one you propose.

 

[95coug]

You right. Damn, I'm living in the 70's I guess. Biden would've only got 35 of the 55. But that's more reflective of the actual will of the voter in California than the one you propose.

I don’t think anyone’s talking about giving electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote. There’s no reason to do that.
The Maine/Nebraska method assigns based on congressional district outcomes, doing the same would give. Biden 46 districts in California.

Sure, there’s a concern about gerrymandering, but it’s a lot harder to do that as the scale gets bigger and the count gets broader. And regardless, the winner take all approach is dumb, and never should have been used.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I don’t think anyone’s talking about giving electoral votes based on percentage of popular vote. There’s no reason to do that.
The Maine/Nebraska method assigns based on congressional district outcomes, doing the same would give. Biden 46 districts in California.

Sure, there’s a concern about gerrymandering, but it’s a lot harder to do that as the scale gets bigger and the count gets broader. And regardless, the winner take all approach is dumb, and never should have been used.

OMG. After I recover from my current heart attack, I will hunt you down and give you some smoochies. Hope you are cute. At least as cute as my dog. She's a honey. I will shave so I don't scruff you up. Although some girls like it. Others, not so much.

 

[Stretch 74]

So exactly what is the existing problem? And so what if the big cities (which I hate) win? Cuz majority rules? You guys just f-ing kill me. Oh Gawd, let's not let the American people decide the most important election there is?

F-ing Trump got beat badly in the popular vote (Hillary beat him too). But because of a few closely called states, he was close to winning the electoral college vote.

I just don't get you guys. F#$%. The popular vote of the people doesn't matter. Arbitrary state lines determine who becomes President?

"None of the other elections are for an office that represents the whole country"

So f-ing what? Let's make the most important election in the country differ from EVERY OTHER election at ANY level?

You guys just f-ing kill me. The popular vote, the cornerstone of democracy, doesn't matter. All that matters is the BS system that was instituted 250 years ago. And that most Americans want to abolish. Oh Gawd, let's not put that up for a vote of the people.

And enough of this "we are a republic, not a democracy" shit. You guys are nuts.

No wonder we are so F-ed up as a country.

Unfortunately, you are wrong in two of your basic premises. First, the American people actually DO decide who is elected president, they just do it in a different system than you prefer. The American people, on a state by state basis select the EC electors and they take the will of their state's people forward and cast EC votes for their states people. Each state's people are REPRESENTED by their electors, you know, as a representative democracy.

Secondly, the popular vote may be the cornerstone of other countries, but it is NOT the cornerstone of OUR country. The cornerstone of our country is the United States Constitution, plain and simple.

Finally, the fact is that the USA actually IS a republic, and you not liking that does not change that fact. To try to argue that will just make you look dumb.

Now go ahead and say the Pledge of Allegiance out loud and contemplate the meaning of the words.

Is the United States a Republic or a Democracy?

The United States of America is governed as a federal republic, and therefore some argue that the U.S. is not a democracy. Learn more about the government of the US.

www.worldatlas.com

 

[Suudy]

Another note. In the UK, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliment. There’s no popular vote for their equivalent to our chief executive. Is their system “wrong” because it isn’t 1 person one vote?

The key here, I think, is the assumption that a popular vote is superior to other systems. Why should we think so?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Another note. In the UK, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliment. There’s no popular vote for their equivalent to our chief executive. Is their system “wrong” because it isn’t 1 person one vote?

The key here, I think, is the assumption that a popular vote is superior to other systems. Why should we think so?

Yeah, let's emulate the UK. You know, that oppressive kingdom that we fought (and won) to get free from 250 years ago. And that perpetuates that insane King bullshit. I mean WTF?

 

[Suudy]

Yeah, let's emulate the UK. You know, that oppressive kingdom that we fought (and won) to get free from 250 years ago. And that perpetuates that insane King bullshit. I mean WTF?

Not just the UK is parliamentary ….

Who then should we emulate? How do we know what we should do?

 

[mikalalas]

Yeah, let's emulate the UK. You know, that oppressive kingdom that we fought (and won) to get free from 250 years ago. And that perpetuates that insane King bullshit. I mean WTF?

Actually, it's the other way around.

The UK, Britain, England, went from a King, to COPYING the USA's Democratic Republic, Electoral College system in their Presidential/Prime Minister election.

That's why their Parliament uses a Electoral College like system to Elect their Prime Minister.

The USA's Electoral College system did not copy England.

England copied the USA.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Not just the UK is parliamentary ….

Who then should we emulate? How do we know what we should do?

I dunno. How about going to a democratic voting system? Where Biden won by 7 million votes. Plenty of cushion to mitigate all this BS voter fraud crap.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I dunno. How about going to a democratic voting system? Where Biden won by 7 million votes. Plenty of cushion to mitigate all this BS voter fraud crap.

This! Popular vote eliminates states setting up their individual rules of selecting electors (throwing out results and appointing alternate electors based on each states' ruling party) or trying to strong-arm or intimidate governor's and sec of states to "find" the necessary votes. Taihtsat