Electoral College Reform (with actual poll this time)

[bongsaway]

I'm for whatever helps my side more.



Like everyone else.

Ummm, everyone else is not like you and wants whatever helps them win. Doesn't say much for your integrity.

I want fair elections, one person, one vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. Pretty simple.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Ummm, everyone else is not like you and wants whatever helps them win. Doesn't say much for your integrity.

I want fair elections, one person, one vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. Pretty simple.

So when a sports fan cheers when his team scores a point, you're saying he should also cheer when the rival team scores a point otherwise he has a lack of integrity.

 

[Cardinal]

Reference - Senate, US


That has nothing to do with it. They rejected popular vote long before #68.

Why? Citation, please. Your opinion is no good here.

 

[ReubenSherr]

There's no option for simply taking the popular vote in each state and splitting it proportionatey bewteen electors - That would be my first choice, in an ideal world

BTW I'm not sure the winner-take-all system helped or hurt either candidate in 2016. Trump benefitted from the fact that Georgia was winner take all, Clinton benefitted from the fact that Virginia was winner take all, etc.

What helped Trump was the fact that massive pockets of Clinton votes in deep blue states (where you get hanged if you vote Republican) didn't change the outcome of the Electoral College. The fact that these deep blue states were winner-take-all actually helped Clinton, in terms of the Electoral College.

 

[Jay59]

Why? Citation, please. Your opinion is no good here.

Right back at you. You want to change what is working correctly. Let's see some reasons that are better than I don't like Trump.

It's on you. Show if you have anything at all.

 

[eman623]

Ummm, everyone else is not like you and wants whatever helps them win. Doesn't say much for your integrity.

I want fair elections, one person, one vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. Pretty simple.

And that just so happens to help your side more. What an amazing coincidence!

 

[Cardinal]

Right back at you. You want to change what is working correctly. Let's see some reasons that are better than I don't like Trump.

It's on you. Show if you have anything at all.

The EC didn’t work as intended. Firstly, Hamilton thinks you’re too stupid to select a President wisely:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.“

Secondly, it was to prevent corruption and foreign influence over the President, something the EC failed utterly at:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

As I said, the EC is indefensible on its merits.

 

[AmNat]

Currently, all states except Nebraska and Maine use a Winner-Take-All system where whoever with a the popular vote in the state receives all that states electoral votes.

Nebraska uses a Congressional District method where a candidate record one electoral vote for each district won, and the two remains votes go to the winner of the state-owned popular vote.

Maine will use a ranked vote/congressional district method where voters vote for multiple candidates for President and vice President in order of preference. In the first round of voting, if no candidate has a majority, then the votes for the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated and all 1st choice votes for that candidate will be replaced by that voter's second chor. This will repeat until there is a majority winner in each district and separately at the state level for the final two votes.

For the first few elections, at least some of the state legislatures would appoint the electors without a popular vote.

A few years ago a Congressional district variation was proposed in Virginia where the two extra votes would be give to the candidate who won the most districts, not popular vote.

It should be changed to give each state equal representation, or to apportion representation based on geographic area.

 

[AmNat]

And that just so happens to help your side more. What an amazing coincidence!

The perfect leftist is the fanatical hypocrite. While his beliefs correspond precisely to his own advantage, he believes in them furiously just the same. His opportunism does not even slightly detract from his sincerity, which is palpable and enormous. Indeed, if the situation changes and so do his interests, his mind will change as well. And change sincerely.

The Lightworker wants to touch your junk | Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug

 

[bongsaway]

So when a sports fan cheers when his team scores a point, you're saying he should also cheer when the rival team scores a point otherwise he has a lack of integrity.

You're comparing voting to a sports team scoring. I swear a person has to twist themselves into a pretzel to follow some of the logic from the right.

 

[bongsaway]

And that just so happens to help your side more. What an amazing coincidence!

If one person one vote helps democrats, that should tell republicans a little something about their party. You guys talk all that big tent stuff and yet keep isolating groups of people. Trump constantly goes on about black and brown people in a negative way and it's been that way for decades. Do you think it's a coincidence that almost all blacks vote democratic? They know the gop can't stand black people and want nothing to do with the gop tent.

You like almost every other republican voter can't stand the idea of one person, one vote. It's much too difficult to cheat that way beside the fact the electoral college then can't hand another election to the person with lesser votes.

Republican would be happy if they won with forty percent of the vote even if the other person got sixty percent, that to them is fair.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You're comparing voting to a sports team scoring.

Yes. They are the same thing. Whoever gets the most points, wins. The object of the game is to win, not play fair. No losing team ever said, "at least I played by the rules".

I swear a person has to twist themselves into a pretzel to follow some of the logic from the right.

Who's on the right?

 

[Welkin]

I didn't know land counted as people.

All Dirt Matters.

 

[bongsaway]

Yes. They are the same thing. Whoever gets the most points, wins. The object of the game is to win, not play fair. No losing team ever said, "at least I played by the rules".


Who's on the right?

You for one are a part of the right no matter what your info states. Voting isn't a game. Secondly again not all folks think like you. If you have to cheat to win, did you actually win? Ever notice sports have officials to insure dirty business isn't the reason for winning.

Your reasoning is disgusting but it's kind of what I expect from people today who vote republican.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You for one are a part of the right...

I accept that you think so.

Voting isn't a game.

Indeed. It's a science. You can even get advanced degrees in it.

Secondly again not all folks think like you.

I accept that people think differently. For example, I do math in shapes, not numbers.

If you have to cheat to win, did you actually win?

Yes. If you are elected President, then you won. If your team has the most points by the end of the game, your team won. I cheat in World Of Warcraft rated battlegrounds and the server literally tells everyone who wins.

Ever notice sports have officials to insure dirty business isn't the reason for winning.

Sure, but scoring a point isn't cheating. It's a core part of the game.

Your reasoning is disgusting...

Thank you for sharing your opinion, it's worth exactly what I paid for it

 

[bongsaway]

I accept that you think so.


Indeed. It's a science. You can even get advanced degrees in it.


I accept that people think differently. For example, I do math in shapes, not numbers.


Yes. If you are elected President, then you won. If your team has the most points by the end of the game, your team won. I cheat in World Of Warcraft rated battlegrounds and the server literally tells everyone who wins.


Sure, but scoring a point isn't cheating. It's a core part of the game.


Thank you for sharing your opinion, it's worth exactly what I paid for it

Do you generally vote republican? I see libertarian but to me that means to chicken**** to say republican.

 

[Jay59]

The EC didn’t work as intended. Firstly, Hamilton thinks you’re too stupid to select a President wisely:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.“

Secondly, it was to prevent corruption and foreign influence over the President, something the EC failed utterly at:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”

As I said, the EC is indefensible on its merits.

That last sentence is unrelated to the preceding ones. I get that you cherry picked a few comments from one pf the Federalist papers, but there is no context, no legislative histoory, no logical connection, just a leap to an apparently unrelated conclusion. Most importantly, you did not even try to address the main issue--why the popular vote was rejected and what has changed.

The mere fact that the convention rejected the popular vote raises a presumption against adopting it at a later date. Start with that much.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Do you generally vote republican?

I could say anything and you would have no way to verifying my claims.

 

[bongsaway]

I could say anything and you would have no way to verifying my claims.

Finally, something accurate from you.

 

[Perotista]

Currently, all states except Nebraska and Maine use a Winner-Take-All system where whoever with a the popular vote in the state receives all that states electoral votes.

Nebraska uses a Congressional District method where a candidate record one electoral vote for each district won, and the two remains votes go to the winner of the state-owned popular vote.

Maine will use a ranked vote/congressional district method where voters vote for multiple candidates for President and vice President in order of preference. In the first round of voting, if no candidate has a majority, then the votes for the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated and all 1st choice votes for that candidate will be replaced by that voter's second chor. This will repeat until there is a majority winner in each district and separately at the state level for the final two votes.

For the first few elections, at least some of the state legislatures would appoint the electors without a popular vote.

A few years ago a Congressional district variation was proposed in Virginia where the two extra votes would be give to the candidate who won the most districts, not popular vote.

Eliminating the Electoral College isn't going to happen. That would take a Constitutional Amendment. Approval by 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. Being a political realist, one then has to look at the states and what each state legislature can do.

I'd like to see a modification of the winner take all system. Only if a candidate wins a majority, 50% plus one vote would a candidate be awarded all that states electoral votes. If no candidate received a majority of the votes, then go the the Nebraska congressional district method with the plurality winning in the state receiving the remaining two electoral votes.

Each state legislature can do the the above on their own with no Constitutional Amendment required. Several years ago Pennsylvania debated going to the Nebraska Congressional District method, but in the end discarded it as Pennsylvania decided it would weaken that states electoral vote power. They would get less visits from the candidates and would be less important since instead of 20 electoral votes going to the winner, that 20 would be divided up, diluted to the state awarding but 2 with each congressional district one each.

Leaving the winner take all with only a majority received would still let the state have its power, its potential of awarding all 20 electoral vote to the winner of the state. The problem is the state is controlled and has a history of voting for one political party, it doesn't want to take a chance of dividing its electoral votes between their party and the opposing party. For example, California legislature dominated by Democrats wants to make sure the Democratic candidates receives all that states 55 electoral votes. Same with Texas on the GOP side. Pennsylvania at the time this was considered was dominated by Democrats and the Democratic controlled legislature refused to make any changes that might give the Republican candidate some of its electoral votes.

 

[Cardinal]

That last sentence is unrelated to the preceding ones.

Then you just don't have reading comprehension. That's not my problem.

I get that you cherry picked a few comments from one pf the Federalist papers

Then you don't know what "cherry picking" means.

but there is no context, no legislative histoory, no logical connection, just a leap to an apparently unrelated conclusion. Most importantly, you did not even try to address the main issue--why the popular vote was rejected and what has changed.

Says the guy whose sole selection from Federalist 68 is that the electoral college is "excellent."

The mere fact that the convention rejected the popular vote raises a presumption against adopting it at a later date. Start with that much.

That's the dumbest thing anybody will say on the internet today. Congrats.

 

[haymarket]

And thus, the problem.

Are you against the principle of one person/one vote with all votes having equal weight?

 

[MTAtech]

I voted "other" because it would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC, which won't happen.

My alternative is the state-pact which calls for state legislatures passing legislation that awards all the state's EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. It then goes into affect when the total states that pass it reaches 270 EC votes.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Are you against the principle of one person/one vote with all votes having equal weight?

Of course, as were the founding fathers, which is why we have a Congress and a Senate instead of one or the other. It forces the popular vote to negotiate with the landowners.

 

[MTAtech]

There's no principled defense for the EC. Get rid of it.

Two arguments in favor of the EC that are frequently used and fail to perfection:

1)The founding fathers didn't want large population centers to choose the President (aka they didn't want cities to choose the President).

Problem: besides being an asinine argument because nobody can intelligently explain why a larger body of people would be worse in any way to smaller bodies of people, there is also zero evidence to support this.

2) We are a Republic and not a democracy.

Problem: It's a neat factoid, but that statement doesn't actually mean anything, at least as it pertains to the topic at hand.

Bonus argument: The founding fathers used the Electoral College in order to placate Southern slave states who didn't want to give slaves the right to vote (because duh) but didn't want their lower populations to count against them.

Problem: Aaaaaaand that's your defense of the Electoral College?

In the beginning of the republic, many people couldn't vote. In 5 states, the state legislature chose electors. Six others chose electors through some form involving a popular vote, and only two states did the choice depend directly on a statewide vote in a way even roughly resembling the modern method in all states.

You are right about the slave states. Their EC count was based upon total free people and 3/5 of the slave population. Of course, women didn't vote at all.