An immodest proposal for general elections of U.S. Member of Congress and our presidents.

[I'm Supposn]

An immodest proposal for general elections of U.S. Member of Congress and our presidents.

Votes for other than the Democratic House of Representative candidates within predominantly Democratic congressional districts, are futile votes. Votes for Democrat house candidates to represent predominantly Republican congressional district are also ineffective; they're essentially futile votes. Wouldn't it be preferable if everyone's votes for U.S. Congressional House representatives and U.S. senators actually affected our nation's future policies? (I digress to discuss the U.S. Constitution which is germane to this question).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There were many compromises among the delegates to what then evolved to be the United States first constitutional convention. I do not regret most of the compromises among the delegates from the then greater or lesser populous states. Delegates from lesser populated states required some assurances that their states' priorities would not be passed over because the more populous states had the majority of votes in our federal legislatures, and among the voters who would determine those who would direct what became the executive branch of our federal government. Over the centuries, the size and proportional distribution of our nation's population have changed, but our now lesser populated states continue to be concerned for their interests; they do not want to be disfavored for the sake of our more populous states.


Each state's numbers of members to the to the U.S. House of Representatives are primarily determined by their state's population. Regardless of their populations, each state is represented by exactly two members of the U.S. Senate. Both the factors of each state's numbers of U.S House representatives and their state's numbers of U.S. senators are indirectly reflected by their state's numbers of electors within the U.S. Electoral college to elect our president, are indirectly based upon those state's numbers of members to each Congressional chamber and to the electoral College which are also due to those first U.S. constitutional convention compromises.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I perceive no good reason to change any of these concepts in our constitution. But there remains the questions; wouldn't be preferable for ALL votes cast for other than the then elected members of the U.S. Congress, (rather than only votes cast for those actually elected), to effectively affect our nation's future policies? Must all votes for other than the winners be ineffective futile votes?

I advocate candidates for the House Representatives receiving 1% or more of their district's votes, should be considered as been viable candidates. All candidates, including the elected candidates should be awarded the power of weighed members' votes in all proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives. The weight of those votes being the percentages of votes the candidates received in their district's previous general election. Those recognized as credible candidates may not directly participate in the House's affairs, but they may temporarily assign their votes, and they may later revoke and reassign their votes to any currently elected or appointed member of the U.S. House.

This same concept could be applied to elections and procedures of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Electoral College. Within this concept, every general election vote would affect our nation's future policies. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Mycroft]

An immodest proposal for general elections of U.S. Member of Congress and our presidents.

Votes for other than the Democratic House of Representative candidates within predominantly Democratic congressional districts, are futile votes. Votes for Democrat house candidates to represent predominantly Republican congressional district are also ineffective; they're essentially futile votes. Wouldn't it be preferable if everyone's votes for U.S. Congressional House representatives and U.S. senators actually affected our nation's future policies? (I digress to discuss the U.S. Constitution which is germane to this question).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There were many compromises among the delegates to what then evolved to be the United States first constitutional convention. I do not regret most of the compromises among the delegates from the then greater or lesser populous states. Delegates from lesser populated states required some assurances that their states' priorities would not be passed over because the more populous states had the majority of votes in our federal legislatures, and among the voters who would determine those who would direct what became the executive branch of our federal government. Over the centuries, the size and proportional distribution of our nation's population have changed, but our now lesser populated states continue to be concerned for their interests; they do not want to be disfavored for the sake of our more populous states.


Each state's numbers of members to the to the U.S. House of Representatives are primarily determined by their state's population. Regardless of their populations, each state is represented by exactly two members of the U.S. Senate. Both the factors of each state's numbers of U.S House representatives and their state's numbers of U.S. senators are indirectly reflected by their state's numbers of electors within the U.S. Electoral college to elect our president, are indirectly based upon those state's numbers of members to each Congressional chamber and to the electoral College which are also due to those first U.S. constitutional convention compromises.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I perceive no good reason to change any of these concepts in our constitution. But there remains the questions; wouldn't be preferable for ALL votes cast for other than the then elected members of the U.S. Congress, (rather than only votes cast for those actually elected), to effectively affect our nation's future policies? Must all votes for other than the winners be ineffective futile votes?

I advocate candidates for the House Representatives receiving 1% or more of their district's votes, should be considered as been viable candidates. All candidates, including the elected candidates should be awarded the power of weighed members' votes in all proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives. The weight of those votes being the percentages of votes the candidates received in their district's previous general election. Those recognized as credible candidates may not directly participate in the House's affairs, but they may temporarily assign their votes, and they may later revoke and reassign their votes to any currently elected or appointed member of the U.S. House.

This same concept could be applied to elections and procedures of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Electoral College. Within this concept, every general election vote would affect our nation's future policies. Respectfully, Supposn

Loser's shouldn't get a say. There's a reason why they are losers.

What you propose is nothing more than a dilution of the positions of the winners. There is a reason why they are the winners.

 

[Grand Mal]

Loser's shouldn't get a say. There's a reason why they are losers.

Unless they're named 'Trump'.

What you propose is nothing more than a dilution of the positions of the winners. There is a reason why they are the winners.

Because election fraud?

 

[SkyChief]

. . . . Wouldn't it be preferable if everyone's votes for U.S. Congressional House representatives and U.S. senators actually affected our nation's future policies? . . .

No.

. . . there remains the questions; wouldn't be preferable for ALL votes cast for other than the then elected members of the U.S. Congress, (rather than only votes cast for those actually elected), to effectively affect our nation's future policies? Must all votes for other than the winners be ineffective futile votes? . . .

No. We are a republic - meaning that our lawmakers are elected by the democratic process (popular vote).

We should not have unelected people influencing the lawmaking process. IMO.

 

[Cameron]

An immodest proposal for general elections of U.S. Member of Congress and our presidents.

Votes for other than the Democratic House of Representative candidates within predominantly Democratic congressional districts, are futile votes. Votes for Democrat house candidates to represent predominantly Republican congressional district are also ineffective; they're essentially futile votes. Wouldn't it be preferable if everyone's votes for U.S. Congressional House representatives and U.S. senators actually affected our nation's future policies? (I digress to discuss the U.S. Constitution which is germane to this question).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There were many compromises among the delegates to what then evolved to be the United States first constitutional convention. I do not regret most of the compromises among the delegates from the then greater or lesser populous states. Delegates from lesser populated states required some assurances that their states' priorities would not be passed over because the more populous states had the majority of votes in our federal legislatures, and among the voters who would determine those who would direct what became the executive branch of our federal government. Over the centuries, the size and proportional distribution of our nation's population have changed, but our now lesser populated states continue to be concerned for their interests; they do not want to be disfavored for the sake of our more populous states.


Each state's numbers of members to the to the U.S. House of Representatives are primarily determined by their state's population. Regardless of their populations, each state is represented by exactly two members of the U.S. Senate. Both the factors of each state's numbers of U.S House representatives and their state's numbers of U.S. senators are indirectly reflected by their state's numbers of electors within the U.S. Electoral college to elect our president, are indirectly based upon those state's numbers of members to each Congressional chamber and to the electoral College which are also due to those first U.S. constitutional convention compromises.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I perceive no good reason to change any of these concepts in our constitution. But there remains the questions; wouldn't be preferable for ALL votes cast for other than the then elected members of the U.S. Congress, (rather than only votes cast for those actually elected), to effectively affect our nation's future policies? Must all votes for other than the winners be ineffective futile votes?

I advocate candidates for the House Representatives receiving 1% or more of their district's votes, should be considered as been viable candidates. All candidates, including the elected candidates should be awarded the power of weighed members' votes in all proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives. The weight of those votes being the percentages of votes the candidates received in their district's previous general election. Those recognized as credible candidates may not directly participate in the House's affairs, but they may temporarily assign their votes, and they may later revoke and reassign their votes to any currently elected or appointed member of the U.S. House.

This same concept could be applied to elections and procedures of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Electoral College. Within this concept, every general election vote would affect our nation's future policies. Respectfully, Supposn

It’s an interesting idea and one I hadn’t thought of before. To be honest I kind of like it, although of course it will never be adopted.

If I understand the idea correctly though, wouldn’t there be like 100,000 representatives? Congress would have to become unpaid….

 

[Jason Warfield]

That’s one way to start a civil war…

 

[mrjurrs]

An immodest proposal for general elections of U.S. Member of Congress and our presidents.

Votes for other than the Democratic House of Representative candidates within predominantly Democratic congressional districts, are futile votes. Votes for Democrat house candidates to represent predominantly Republican congressional district are also ineffective; they're essentially futile votes. Wouldn't it be preferable if everyone's votes for U.S. Congressional House representatives and U.S. senators actually affected our nation's future policies? (I digress to discuss the U.S. Constitution which is germane to this question).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There were many compromises among the delegates to what then evolved to be the United States first constitutional convention. I do not regret most of the compromises among the delegates from the then greater or lesser populous states. Delegates from lesser populated states required some assurances that their states' priorities would not be passed over because the more populous states had the majority of votes in our federal legislatures, and among the voters who would determine those who would direct what became the executive branch of our federal government. Over the centuries, the size and proportional distribution of our nation's population have changed, but our now lesser populated states continue to be concerned for their interests; they do not want to be disfavored for the sake of our more populous states.


Each state's numbers of members to the to the U.S. House of Representatives are primarily determined by their state's population. Regardless of their populations, each state is represented by exactly two members of the U.S. Senate. Both the factors of each state's numbers of U.S House representatives and their state's numbers of U.S. senators are indirectly reflected by their state's numbers of electors within the U.S. Electoral college to elect our president, are indirectly based upon those state's numbers of members to each Congressional chamber and to the electoral College which are also due to those first U.S. constitutional convention compromises.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I perceive no good reason to change any of these concepts in our constitution. But there remains the questions; wouldn't be preferable for ALL votes cast for other than the then elected members of the U.S. Congress, (rather than only votes cast for those actually elected), to effectively affect our nation's future policies? Must all votes for other than the winners be ineffective futile votes?

I advocate candidates for the House Representatives receiving 1% or more of their district's votes, should be considered as been viable candidates. All candidates, including the elected candidates should be awarded the power of weighed members' votes in all proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives. The weight of those votes being the percentages of votes the candidates received in their district's previous general election. Those recognized as credible candidates may not directly participate in the House's affairs, but they may temporarily assign their votes, and they may later revoke and reassign their votes to any currently elected or appointed member of the U.S. House.

This same concept could be applied to elections and procedures of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Electoral College. Within this concept, every general election vote would affect our nation's future policies. Respectfully, Supposn

First, we have the technology to turn our government into a democracy. Would you want the people to vote on every issue facing America? We could do that.

I'd rather change the Electoral College by amending the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1929.

 

[I'm Supposn]

It’s an interesting idea and one I hadn’t thought of before. To be honest I kind of like it, although of course it will never be adopted.

If I understand the idea correctly though, wouldn’t there be like 100,000 representatives? Congress would have to become unpaid….

Cameron, excerpted from this thread's initial post: " ... those recognized as credible candidates may not directly participate in the House's affairs, but they may temporarily assign their votes, and they may later revoke and reassign their votes to any currently elected or appointed member of the U.S. House”.

There wouldn't be any additional members of our U.S. Congress. Those unelected candidates need never travel to Washington D.C. they could choose to be sworn in within their own congressional district or anywhere else in the USA.
There are now to many of representatives in the House's chamber. The tasks of our U.S, House's speaker and the House's minority party's leader are best described by the phrase, “like herding cats”.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

Loser's shouldn't get a say. There's a reason why they are losers.

What you propose is nothing more than a dilution of the positions of the winners. There is a reason why they are the winners.

Currently Republicans' voting in a predominately democratic congressional districts, or a Democrats voting in predominately republican districts are all casting futile votes. Nearly half of our nations votes have effectively no affect upon our nation's future political policies. You're OK with that?
This proposal would not decrease or increase any states or congressional districts political powers or influence. The question is should the elected officials or their states and their congressional districts be the beneficiaries of their elections. Shouldn't elected officials strive to best represent and serve their entire constituency? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Mycroft]

Currently Republicans' voting in a predominately democratic congressional districts, or a Democrats voting in predominately republican districts are all casting futile votes. Nearly half of our nations votes have effectively no affect upon our nation's future political policies. You're OK with that?

Yes.

Winners and losers, you know.

This proposal would not decrease or increase any states or congressional districts political powers or influence. The question is should the elected officials or their states and their congressional districts be the beneficiaries of their elections. Shouldn't elected officials strive to best represent and serve their entire constituency? Respectfully, Supposn

Elected officials should represent the majority who voted them into office.

Your proposal would give the losers more influence than they've earned.