prairiefire
Member
Quite conceivable that Trump could win convincingly with the popular vote and lose via the electoral college. Time to dump the electoral college IMO.
Electoral College
- Thread starter prairiefire
- Start date
IAyoteHNTR
New member
If that ends up being the case I guess it will just be payback for the Bush/Gore election fiasco.
I've been saying for a couple of elections that it was going to be a bad day when the popular is overridden by the electoral.
The past two elections I was worried about it being the popular for dems and the electoral for republicans, I feel the same way about it going this way than I did about the other way, it isn't right.
I suppose people could argue about this but it's the GOP up until this election that opposed getting rid of the electoral college. The electoral favors those states where the population is higher for the minority party, and party control is maintained in spite of the smaller population by gerrymandered districts. The GOP knows exactly how those margins break out. The GOP carries way more states by number, but many have low electoral vote numbers.
I hope this election holds true to both, that is what's best for the country.
The past two elections I was worried about it being the popular for dems and the electoral for republicans, I feel the same way about it going this way than I did about the other way, it isn't right.
I suppose people could argue about this but it's the GOP up until this election that opposed getting rid of the electoral college. The electoral favors those states where the population is higher for the minority party, and party control is maintained in spite of the smaller population by gerrymandered districts. The GOP knows exactly how those margins break out. The GOP carries way more states by number, but many have low electoral vote numbers.
I hope this election holds true to both, that is what's best for the country.
We are not a democracy, it's a representative republic. Hence the Electoral college.
To be fair, they really should equally distribute the college votes among the states, as each state should have a say. See the thought process for why each state has two senators.
No one state should have more than 10% more college votes than any other.
To be fair, they really should equally distribute the college votes among the states, as each state should have a say. See the thought process for why each state has two senators.
No one state should have more than 10% more college votes than any other.
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZWe are not a democracy, it's a representative republic. Hence the Electoral college.
To be fair, they really should equally distribute the college votes among the states, as each state should have a say. See the thought process for why each state has two senators.
No one state should have more than 10% more college votes than any other.
It warrants some thought. The problem with two for each state is that the population could possibly be vastly misrepresented by a few politicians. The college being one dem and one republican from each state would come down to party lines, but could get distorted by urban populous versus rural.
Then there is the flip side which is is it right for a state with a fraction of the population to have the same say as one of the huge states. That dilutes the vote of millions of people.
It may be one of the basic flaws hampering a government by the people.
The real flaw is when a large state like Florida has a close race but it's electoral all goes toward the close winner. That's where it stops representing the people accurately. Some states have proportional, which seems like it would better reflect the will of each state.
To be fair, they really should equally distribute the college votes among the states, as each state should have a say. See the thought process for why each state has two senators.
No one state should have more than 10% more college votes than any other.
It warrants some thought. The problem with two for each state is that the population could possibly be vastly misrepresented by a few politicians. The college being one dem and one republican from each state would come down to party lines, but could get distorted by urban populous versus rural.
Then there is the flip side which is is it right for a state with a fraction of the population to have the same say as one of the huge states. That dilutes the vote of millions of people.
It may be one of the basic flaws hampering a government by the people.
The real flaw is when a large state like Florida has a close race but it's electoral all goes toward the close winner. That's where it stops representing the people accurately. Some states have proportional, which seems like it would better reflect the will of each state.
You may want to re-read and revise your comments on what was actually said.
having all states college votes within 10% of any other doesn't mean that each state gets 2 votes for president.
It also isn't fair for Commyfornia to get more votes than most of the western states combined.
United states should mean each state gets a say for what is in their best interest. The views and objections of those in Montana shouldn't be drowned out by California.
having all states college votes within 10% of any other doesn't mean that each state gets 2 votes for president.
It also isn't fair for Commyfornia to get more votes than most of the western states combined.
United states should mean each state gets a say for what is in their best interest. The views and objections of those in Montana shouldn't be drowned out by California.
I guess it comes down to representation for the states or representation for the people.
I would be okay with a popular vote, the electoral is basically saying the government doesn't trust the people to know how they want to be represented.
States with majority control are stepping all over the constitution, which makes the argument against states having any say in who the people want to elect as president. Part of the problem I see is people who elect senators and representatives who then do as they see fit in ways that are often at odds with what is best for the people who put them in office.
Efforts to legalize pot is showing examples of people wanting it legalized then state governments are all over the map as far as how it is handled from there. Morris, the cigarette company, is trying to create a huge monopoly for growing vast amounts for the legal industry. They are trying to get states to edge out smaller growers in favor of those who have the deepest pockets. That isn't what people are voting for when they legalize pot.
States are being allowed to interfere in too many things that are infringing on federal rights. California gun control is an example of where the standard should be federally controlled, which would make California less vulnerable to extremes. I would prefer all states deciding what is done in all states. Same for a dozen other things.
Until the electoral college is changed it will be determining who's president.
I would be okay with a popular vote, the electoral is basically saying the government doesn't trust the people to know how they want to be represented.
States with majority control are stepping all over the constitution, which makes the argument against states having any say in who the people want to elect as president. Part of the problem I see is people who elect senators and representatives who then do as they see fit in ways that are often at odds with what is best for the people who put them in office.
Efforts to legalize pot is showing examples of people wanting it legalized then state governments are all over the map as far as how it is handled from there. Morris, the cigarette company, is trying to create a huge monopoly for growing vast amounts for the legal industry. They are trying to get states to edge out smaller growers in favor of those who have the deepest pockets. That isn't what people are voting for when they legalize pot.
States are being allowed to interfere in too many things that are infringing on federal rights. California gun control is an example of where the standard should be federally controlled, which would make California less vulnerable to extremes. I would prefer all states deciding what is done in all states. Same for a dozen other things.
Until the electoral college is changed it will be determining who's president.
Here's my simple solution.
The Congress shall elect the president based on the popular vote of their states. Each senator shall cast his/her vote in accordance with the popular vote of the entire state. Each representative shall cast his/her vote in accordance with the popular vote of his/her Congressional district.
A simple modification of the Electoral College system that does away with the flawed "winner take all" approach that is currently in place in 48 states.
The Congress shall elect the president based on the popular vote of their states. Each senator shall cast his/her vote in accordance with the popular vote of the entire state. Each representative shall cast his/her vote in accordance with the popular vote of his/her Congressional district.
A simple modification of the Electoral College system that does away with the flawed "winner take all" approach that is currently in place in 48 states.
wow Woody.. you seriously would benefit from Hillsdale college course on the constitution. Read the constitution, one sentence at a time, digest it, and you will see that a lot of the things you talk about are contrary to the founding documents.
How can the electoral college not represent the votes of those in a state? When (show a link) has that happened?
Popular vote over electoral vote is a way to count fly over country less. That is not how a representative government works.
How can the electoral college not represent the votes of those in a state? When (show a link) has that happened?
Popular vote over electoral vote is a way to count fly over country less. That is not how a representative government works.
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZwow Woody.. you seriously would benefit from Hillsdale college course on the constitution. Read the constitution, one sentence at a time, digest it, and you will see that a lot of the things you talk about are contrary to the founding documents.
How can the electoral college not represent the votes of those in a state? When (show a link) has that happened?
Popular vote over electoral vote is a way to count fly over country less. That is not how a representative government works.
Then I guess you will be satisfied if the popular votes for Trump and the electoral doesn't?
If the right can live with that I guess I can.
How can the electoral college not represent the votes of those in a state? When (show a link) has that happened?
Popular vote over electoral vote is a way to count fly over country less. That is not how a representative government works.
Then I guess you will be satisfied if the popular votes for Trump and the electoral doesn't?
If the right can live with that I guess I can.
Each state has a popular vote. That vote then is used to allocate the college votes awarded to the state.
Do they have to vote the same, no, do they vote against it? very rare. Each state has its own methods and slight variations. But, that again comes back to the STATES RIGHTS..
Having one state get 2 electoral votes and one state getting 50+ doesn't seem to be equitable representation of each of the states in the election.
Win or loose, if nothing else, technology needs to be used to clean up the voting rolls and ensure the accuracy and prevent cheating.
Do they have to vote the same, no, do they vote against it? very rare. Each state has its own methods and slight variations. But, that again comes back to the STATES RIGHTS..
Having one state get 2 electoral votes and one state getting 50+ doesn't seem to be equitable representation of each of the states in the election.
Win or loose, if nothing else, technology needs to be used to clean up the voting rolls and ensure the accuracy and prevent cheating.
Coyotejunki
Well-known member
Quote:But some things should actually be 1 voter, 1 vote. Not 1 voter, who can decide to destroy 10 million votes.
We still have situations where one judge can rule over millions of voters.
We still have situations where one judge can rule over millions of voters.
IAyoteHNTR
New member
Originally Posted By: prairiefireQuite conceivable that Trump could win convincingly with the popular vote and lose via the electoral college. Time to dump the electoral college IMO.
Better keep it as is if you want Republicans to have a chance.
6 out of the last 7 election's popular vote have been won by Democrats. If you went on popular vote, then Gore would have beaten Bush and Hillary would now be your next President. Food for thought.
Better keep it as is if you want Republicans to have a chance.
6 out of the last 7 election's popular vote have been won by Democrats. If you went on popular vote, then Gore would have beaten Bush and Hillary would now be your next President. Food for thought.
SixsixtyMags
Member
Originally Posted By: IAyoteHNTROriginally Posted By: prairiefireQuite conceivable that Trump could win convincingly with the popular vote and lose via the electoral college. Time to dump the electoral college IMO.
Better keep it as is if you want Republicans to have a chance.
6 out of the last 7 election's popular vote have been won by Democrats. If you went on popular vote, then Gore would have beaten Bush and Hillary would now be your next President. Food for thought.
Yes, was just thinking about that prior to reading this post, I believe Hillary did get the majority of votes, but Trump got the electoral votes. Careful what you wish for!
Better keep it as is if you want Republicans to have a chance.
6 out of the last 7 election's popular vote have been won by Democrats. If you went on popular vote, then Gore would have beaten Bush and Hillary would now be your next President. Food for thought.
Yes, was just thinking about that prior to reading this post, I believe Hillary did get the majority of votes, but Trump got the electoral votes. Careful what you wish for!
NdIndy
New member
Originally Posted By: pahntr760The electoral college is necessary to let all voices be heard.
As long as the majority of the voices are saying "our vote doesn't matter" you're right.
The electoral college makes it actually possible, for exactly 11 people to pick the president in direct opposition of the population of the entire country.
319 million votes, vs 11. And the 11 will win.
It would never happen obviously, but it's actually a possibility.
In the real world its what makes it possible for the largest
population centers to decide, in direct opposition of the claim its intended to do the opposite.
We don't have it BECAUSE we're a representative democracy etc, we have because in the 1800s it was impossible to do it any other way, and its never been changed.
As long as the majority of the voices are saying "our vote doesn't matter" you're right.
The electoral college makes it actually possible, for exactly 11 people to pick the president in direct opposition of the population of the entire country.
319 million votes, vs 11. And the 11 will win.
It would never happen obviously, but it's actually a possibility.
In the real world its what makes it possible for the largest
population centers to decide, in direct opposition of the claim its intended to do the opposite.
We don't have it BECAUSE we're a representative democracy etc, we have because in the 1800s it was impossible to do it any other way, and its never been changed.
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZWe are not a democracy, it's a representative republic. Hence the Electoral college.
To be fair, they really should equally distribute the college votes among the states, as each state should have a say. See the thought process for why each state has two senators.
No one state should have more than 10% more college votes than any other.
When I first saw this I was thinking you had something there. Since then I've been reading up on the college, what it is, why it is, and what's wrong with it. The funny part is that there is no fair among the states. Voting for president has nothing to do with states or the legislators from a state. It is a popular vote by the people, the people are supposed to elect a president, PERIOD. One person, one vote, end of subject. A popular vote doesn't take into account the individual say any one state has. A state doesn't have a say, so what difference does it make trying to even out somehow low population states with high population states?
The electoral college was put in place by politicians that thought people were too ignorant to have a say, they flat out did not trust people to know enough to intelligently have a say.
I'd say the time is done for the electoral college. We saw it prevail in Gore and now again.
People cannot say that the people have spoken when the party that turned out less votes gets the president they want.
Sort of hurts your head huh? That's the truth there.
There's actually a lot more to this, and many aspects of the electoral college are wrong. Forget which side prevailed and apply the facts and anyone who supports a true democracy would not want the will of the majority superceded by politicians and states.
No other election in any other democratic country allows a governing body to make this decision for them, it's idiotic. No city, county, or state is anything but a popular vote.
To be fair, they really should equally distribute the college votes among the states, as each state should have a say. See the thought process for why each state has two senators.
No one state should have more than 10% more college votes than any other.
When I first saw this I was thinking you had something there. Since then I've been reading up on the college, what it is, why it is, and what's wrong with it. The funny part is that there is no fair among the states. Voting for president has nothing to do with states or the legislators from a state. It is a popular vote by the people, the people are supposed to elect a president, PERIOD. One person, one vote, end of subject. A popular vote doesn't take into account the individual say any one state has. A state doesn't have a say, so what difference does it make trying to even out somehow low population states with high population states?
The electoral college was put in place by politicians that thought people were too ignorant to have a say, they flat out did not trust people to know enough to intelligently have a say.
I'd say the time is done for the electoral college. We saw it prevail in Gore and now again.
People cannot say that the people have spoken when the party that turned out less votes gets the president they want.
Sort of hurts your head huh? That's the truth there.
There's actually a lot more to this, and many aspects of the electoral college are wrong. Forget which side prevailed and apply the facts and anyone who supports a true democracy would not want the will of the majority superceded by politicians and states.
No other election in any other democratic country allows a governing body to make this decision for them, it's idiotic. No city, county, or state is anything but a popular vote.
Originally Posted By: pahntr760The electoral college is necessary to let all voices be heard.
You want to think about that, and maybe explain how it lets all voices be heard equally?
A popular vote is one person one vote. How is letting an electoral represent hundreds of thousands or even millions of people allowing each voice to be heard equally, especially when you are giving the few people in under populated states have far more weight with their voice.
It's easy to twist issues of fairness into this, fairness to a state. States don't pick the president, people do, one person one vote.
If a state with 600,000 or 900,000 people gets 3 electoral votes (as they do) That's 200,000 and 300,000 per electoral respectively. In an even split that's going to mean 300,000 and 450,000 people's vote means nothing because it is going to go to the state's winner.
In a state like California, if it's people were to have the same level of representation that the smaller states do they would need to have 111 electoral votes. Over twice what it has. So the larger population state has people who's individual vote means far less than the smaller state's people. The say of their electoral actually carries more weight, not equal, and can be hard to catch up to by the larger state. Fair would have an electoral that exactly matched the population, and votes would be split according to the vote. States that lean different than other states would fairly reflect that exact thing when their people vote in favor of the other side, no more no less.
This is about people electing presidents, not states, there is simply no way to equalize states in any fair way, a popular vote is what it is, the majority of the people have the say.
You want to think about that, and maybe explain how it lets all voices be heard equally?
A popular vote is one person one vote. How is letting an electoral represent hundreds of thousands or even millions of people allowing each voice to be heard equally, especially when you are giving the few people in under populated states have far more weight with their voice.
It's easy to twist issues of fairness into this, fairness to a state. States don't pick the president, people do, one person one vote.
If a state with 600,000 or 900,000 people gets 3 electoral votes (as they do) That's 200,000 and 300,000 per electoral respectively. In an even split that's going to mean 300,000 and 450,000 people's vote means nothing because it is going to go to the state's winner.
In a state like California, if it's people were to have the same level of representation that the smaller states do they would need to have 111 electoral votes. Over twice what it has. So the larger population state has people who's individual vote means far less than the smaller state's people. The say of their electoral actually carries more weight, not equal, and can be hard to catch up to by the larger state. Fair would have an electoral that exactly matched the population, and votes would be split according to the vote. States that lean different than other states would fairly reflect that exact thing when their people vote in favor of the other side, no more no less.
This is about people electing presidents, not states, there is simply no way to equalize states in any fair way, a popular vote is what it is, the majority of the people have the say.