• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support changing the state EC votes to a ratio system instead of winner take all?

Would you support changing the state EC votes to a ratio system instead of winner take all?

  • Total voters
    45

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,081
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
now i know the likelihood of an amendment to change this is unlikely but I'm curious what people actually think

currently, 48 states have a winner take all system
currently Nebraska and Main have a list system based on popular district vote and overall state vote

IMO this is a very piss poor system as far as the overall winner is concerned it leaves many voices unheard and its the only time we do this.
its not done with senators, representatives, governors or mayors

Id rather remove the EC and make it a straight popular vote because in todays world there's really no need for the EC but if people are uncomfortable with removing it then ALL states should switch to a ratio system and have the ability to split their votes based on a percentage (rounding down)

if it was a percentages/ratio system then states like my own instead of casting 21 EC votes for Biden PA would have cast 11 votes for Biden and 10 for Trump

Cali 35 Biden, 20 Trump
Texas 20 Trump, 18 Biden

or very close to that etc
IMO there's no logical reason to be against this and if you are its probably telling of another issue

now in the smaller states, it gets toughed if they only have 3 ECs cause you have to round down for the loser you cant round-up
for example in a state with only 3 votes and a million total votes a candidate that got 550k votes would still get 2 votes of the 3 which is not 66% but that's just how it has to work ratio wise. The winner has to get the extra vote.
some voices would still get lost but its still way better than what we do now but we know how math works lol
 
I oppose the idea as it seems to skew the results even more toward a minority win than the current system. But the question is academic, as the decision on how to allocate their EC votes will always rest with the states.
 
It does seem more representative in Maine and Nebraska.

I can’t imagine democrats want to give up their buckets in NY, NJ and CA though.
 
StillBallin75 said:
This seems like simply a proxy for the pop vote with extra steps.

We should just implement pop vote.
Click to expand...
oh I fully agree but for some reason, it brings out pure panic in some folks
its probably based on false narratives but it exists nonetheless
 
Last edited:
BirdinHand said:
It does seem more representative in Maine and Nebraska.
Click to expand...
Maine and Nebraska aren't proportional, they are district-based which is also bad. Because it essentially enables gerrymandered presidential elections.
BirdinHand said:
I can’t imagine democrats want to give up their buckets in NY, NJ and CA though.
Click to expand...
I would strongly support proportional allocation of electoral votes.
 
BirdinHand said:
I can’t imagine democrats want to give up their buckets in NY, NJ and CA though.
Click to expand...
why? that doesnt even make sense based on history during my lifetime

when these conversations come up it seems reality shows the complete opposite

ill have to look but last numbers i saw were something like only 20% of republicans support ending the EC and using the popular vote while like 85% of democrats do and 70% of indepdneants support ending it and using the popular vote
this would be similar and i cant imagine the numbers changing much
 
BirdinHand said:
I can’t imagine democrats want to give up their buckets in NY, NJ and CA though.
Click to expand...
my numbers were off but close enough like i said the reality is the exact opposite of your imagination
 
Because those 3 states equal 98 EC votes.

And there are GOP strongholds in each one of those states, so splitting the EC vote by district, etc (as Maine and Nebraska do) would dilute those guaranteed 98 EC votes - and take how many away?

Would they pick up enough from the urban centers in other states to overcome that?

Maybe?

So far, we have only ever seen (in my lifetime) democratic candidates win the popular vote and lose the EC.

I can’t imagine democrats would want to lose a single of their “guaranteed” EC votes from their stronghold states.


Democrats win urban areas and tend to lose rural. And suburbs are purple.

If you take away the strategy of driving the vote count from urban areas, they really don’t stand a chance of winning.

PA is won or lost based on the vote count coming out of the 5 county region around Philadelphia, for instance. DNC strategy in PA has always been to run that number up as high as possible and hope it can carry the state.

If PA was suddenly awarded by district? That entire strategy would disappear.
 
Is it not because if we only worked with the popular vote that republicans would always lose?
 
BirdinHand said:
Because those 3 states equal 98 EC votes.
Click to expand...
and? thats meaningless to the overall math
BirdinHand said:
And there are GOP strongholds in each one of those states, so splitting the EC vote by district, etc (as Maine and Nebraska do) would dilute those guaranteed 98 EC votes - and take how many away?
Click to expand...
and the same would happen in the opposite fashion in Florida and texas etc. seems you didn think this through . . . .at all
BirdinHand said:
So far, we have only ever seen (in my lifetime) democratic candidates win the popular vote and lose the EC.
Click to expand...
even more reason why your thoughts make no sense
BirdinHand said:
I can’t imagine democrats would want to lose a single of their “guaranteed” EC votes from their stronghold states.
Click to expand...
again like i said and you further proved that makes no sense and is ass backward based on reality, history and math
again history facts and math doesn't agree with you
and the polls i posted already show your thoughts are just flat out wrong
 
AGENT J said:
interesting it took such a turn when it did?

View attachment 67404462
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.

Democrats will either want the EC completely abolished (so popular vote only) or to keep a “winner take all” EC.

The votes they’re getting come predominantly out of urban centers.

You completely change POTUS political campaigns by making them regionalized/district awarding of EC college.

Democrats aren’t campaigning in suburbs.
 
again nothing you said here makes any sense
a ratio system would more closely mirror the popular vote
once again facts reality and history go against your thoughts LMAO
 
My thoughts align directly with what I’ve said.

Democrats will only win if it’s ONLY popular vote.

If it went by Congressional district, then you’d see it much more closely aligned with the Congress.

Which flip flops regularly. Not a winning strategy for democrats considering Republicans have held the house for 9 out of the past 15 sessions.
 
repeat this message 100times facts, math, facts, history and the polls all prove your claim of "the Dems wouldn't want this" wrong
nothing you posted even comes close to supporting it on any logical level at all, its ignorant or dishonest to think so, pick one

but feel free to let me know when a bunch of dems agree with you (right now a vast amount do not) and then you can tell me you told me so LMAO
 
The electoral college, if awarded proportionally by district, would match up with the House.

Here is the history of the House.

Since 1997, Republicans have controlled the house 9 out of 15 sessions.

Awarding EC votes based on Congressional districts is not necessarily advantageous to democrats as republicans have controlled the house more in recent history than democrats have.



Party Divisions of the House of Representatives, 1789 to Present | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Political parties have been central to the organization and operations of the U.S. House of Representatives. As this chart demonstrates, the efforts of the founding generation to create a national government free of political parties proved unworkable. Parties demonstrated their worth in the...
history.house.gov
 
LMAO once again NOTHING you are babbling above supports anything you said about "the dems being against this", facts, math, history and polls all prove you wrong. Its astounding that you cant see this fact, anyway thanks for playing!
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO once again NOTHING you are babbling above supports anything you said about "the dems being against this", facts, math, history and polls all prove you wrong. Its astounding that you cant see this fact, anyway thanks for playing!
Click to expand...
I"m sorry you can't understand Congressional math.

The democrats will want either the EC to stay the WAY IT IS. Or to completely ABOLISH the EC.

Show me where democrats prefer a proportional awarding of EC votes based on Congressional districts, as was your original poll question.
 
AGENT J said:
how could it possibly do that when the ratio, by default, moves away from minority win?
Click to expand...
Not when we have wholesale gerrymandering. Even the House of Representatives allows for a minority majority.
 
Proportional allocation of EVs is essentially a popular vote (more or less), with some extra weight for small states.

Such a system would have benefited Dems in 2020/2016/2000, and Reps in 2012/2008/2004. Who benefits from each system is pretty random from one election to the next, and seems to mostly be a result of the idiosyncratic strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, rather than any structural factors.
 
once again nothing in the triggered post you just made changes any facts, it just makes your false claims look evermore stupid LMAO
lets reflect

facts, math, history and polls all prove your claims about the dems wrong

like i said though by all means let me know when you can show us the majority of dems agree with your claim about them and ill gladly say you were right
until you can you got nothing, zip, zero, ziltch and your posts continue to look like the moronic ignorant drivel it is
quick make another post that changes zero facts!
 
upsideguy said:
Not when we have wholesale gerrymandering. Even the House of Representatives allows for a minority majority.
Click to expand...
gerrymandering while evil wouldnt have anything to do with the ratio/percentage system i presented, the ratio would be based on the popular vote as the examples i showed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…