• 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
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

Its not a terrible idea but I would prefer we leave it the way it is. The outsized footprint of the small states keeps the candidates honest to a degree.

That being said, It was ridiculous in 1900 to still have a system by which the man who got the most votes of the people in a nation didn't win the election. And this was before instantaneous communications, electronic vote tabulation, and mandatory recounts were in place. In 2022 it's not only ridiculous, it's dangerous. There is a tipping point to where the impact of the small states is so ridiculously large that it will make sense to many for the populous states to ignore the results of the election. The solution is simple. Just make it to where you have to win the electoral college vote as well as the popular vote to become President-elect. If no one candidate gets both the majority in the electoral college as well as the plurality of the popular vote (ensuring that he or she is the choice of people), simply use what we have now if nobody wins the Electoral College majority.
 
Its not a terrible idea but I would prefer we leave it the way it is. The outsized footprint of the small states keeps the candidates honest to a degree.
IMO i think it silences way to many voices and this would make it more honest in reality because now you need to go more places or a legit third contender can easily upset things dramatically

The solution is simple. Just make it to where you have to win the electoral college vote as well as the popular vote to become President-elect. If no one candidate gets both the majority in the electoral college as well as the plurality of the popular vote (ensuring that he or she is the choice of people), simply use what we have now if nobody wins the Electoral College majority.
not sure what you are saying here if we are using both and there's a scenario where a person doesn't win both then what?
and if that's what you are saying why do both and not just go with the popular alone ?
 
not sure what you are saying here if we are using both and there's a scenario where a person doesn't win both then what?
The 12th amendment kicks in just like it would now.
and if that's what you are saying why do both and not just go with the popular alone ?
If we did that, the candidates would never leave the coasts. The Electoral College forces candidates to pay, at the very least, lip service to sites they would never visit otherwise. New Hampshire is a good example.
 
Its not a terrible idea but I would prefer we leave it the way it is. The outsized footprint of the small states keeps the candidates honest to a degree.
I think people say this out of reflex, it's something they've been told their whole lives.

I don't think it's really true.
 
I think people say this out of reflex, it's something they've been told their whole lives.

I don't think it's really true.
Ok.

Here is a list of events held during the 2016 general election and in what states they were held in:
1659669413452.png


Do you think that candidates would travel to Iowa and New Hampshire (keep in mind--these are statistics from the general election; not the primaries) if all that mattered was the popular vote?

 
The 12th amendment kicks in just like it would now.
ugh no thanks
If we did that, the candidates would never leave the coasts. The Electoral College forces candidates to pay, at the very least, lip service to sites they would never visit otherwise. New Hampshire is a good example.
i dont believe this theory for second only stupid candidates that didn't really want to win would do this because the reality would be individual votes now count even more especially for other parties or independents.
 
ugh no thanks
Agree. However it is in the constitution.
i dont believe this theory for second only stupid candidates that didn't really want to win would do this because the reality would be individual votes now count even more especially for other parties or independents.
One needn't "believe" it. It is reality.

I'll put it to you like this: Duval County Florida (which isn't even the largest county in Florida), has about 900,000 people.
1659712313212.png

Of the 900,000 people, about 600,000 are registered to vote.
1659712358392.png

In 2020, less than 500,000 voted:
1659712483754.png


Meaning that there are like 150,000 registered voters who didn't vote and about 1/2 a million who didn't vote all together.

The entire population of Wyoming--not a county but an entire state--is about 1/2 a million. If you're advertising, giving speeches, sending surrogates, holding rallies, etc... only your "stupid candidate" would put resources into Wyoming vs Florida.
 
Agree. However it is in the constitution.
never said it was or wasnt and that's meanignless to the conversation of the OP topic, this si about CHANGE
One needn't "believe" it. It is reality.
I'll put it to you like this: Duval County Florida (which isn't even the largest county in Florida), has about 900,000 people.
Of the 900,000 people, about 600,000 are registered to vote.
In 2020, less than 500,000 voted:
Meaning that there are like 150,000 registered voters who didn't vote and about 1/2 a million who didn't vote all together.
The entire population of Wyoming--not a county but an entire state--is about 1/2 a million. If you're advertising, giving speeches, sending surrogates, holding rallies, etc... only your "stupid candidate" would put resources into Wyoming vs Florida.
nothing you posted makes it "reality" you just posted your feelings on why you think it is 🤷‍♂️
you are welcome to feel that way but I'm not buying it cause there's no reason too
 
never said it was or wasnt and that's meanignless to the conversation of the OP topic, this si about CHANGE
Topics should have some tether to reality. As unlikely as it is that we would actually give the people the right to directly elect the President, my plan to have the popular vote added to the requirements to become the President elect are like 1,000 times unlikely to take place. Your plan? More like a million times more unlikely than my plan. The small states are never going to give up their power in this case. And you're going to need 10-12 of them to go along with changing the constitution.
nothing you posted makes it "reality" you just posted your feelings on why you think it is 🤷‍♂️
I posted mathematics and statistics.
you are welcome to feel that way but I'm not buying it cause there's no reason too
Reaility isn't as interesting as fantasy...I'll grant you that. Your plan? Sheer fantasy.
 
Topics should have some tether to reality. As unlikely as it is that we would actually give the people the right to directly elect the President, my plan to have the popular vote added to the requirements to become the President elect are like 1,000 times unlikely to take place. Your plan? More like a million times more unlikely than my plan.
nah not needed life would be boring that way :) so again that's all meaningless to the discussion
The small states are never going to give up their power in this case.
and that's just it, the STATES shouldn't have any power to elect the president, WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD that's what this whole thread is about
And you're going to need 10-12 of them to go along with changing the constitution.
again meaningless
I posted mathematics and statistics.
yes but not any that support or making your feelings true in anyway
i can post mathematics and statistics that show SHaq had a fg% of about 58%, Micheal Jordan only had one of like 49% that doesn't mean shaq was the better shooter 🤷‍♂️
stats are only facts about what they measure, nothing else
Reaility isn't as interesting as fantasy...I'll grant you that. Your plan? Sheer fantasy.
more things that are meaningless to the topic and the OP went over already
its find you don't like my system, you dot have to but its ability to exist doesn't matter
 
Last edited:
nah not needed life would be boring that way :) so again that's all meaningless to the discussion

and that's just it, the STATES shouldn't have any power to elect the president, WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD that's what this whole thread is about

again meaningless

yes but not any that support or making your feelings true in anyway
i can post mathematics and statistics that show SHaq had a fg% of about 58%, Micheal Jordan only had one of like 49% that doesn't mean shaq was the better shooter 🤷‍♂️
stats are only facts about what they measure, nothing else

more things that are meaningless to the topic and the OP went over already
its find you don't like my system, you dot have to but its ability to exist doesn't matter

LOL...ok.
 
A bit late with this reply, sorry.

Yes, I have used the PPACA. It provided my family's healthcare for 11 years, which gave me cover to start my own business without having to worry about the lack of healthcare benefits. I built a small business that employed 85 people. The PPACA did a great job of effectively off-loading the healthcare costs of my small business while providing my workers with great healthcare so that did they did not feel compelled to leave me for a corporate job that they hated, but could give them healthcare. Without the PPACA, I might have had to take a job rather than building a business of my own. I don't think that is in the public interest.

I'm going to still disagree with you here, and am a bit surprised you and your employees think the ACA is a good deal.

When I looked at it, my family coverage was at a very high premium, high deductibles & co-pays, and for the most part still only paid a percentage of fees & charges, meaning I would still be paying out-of-pocket.

I put hard numbers to various plans, and when I added-up premiums and deductibles, for my family I would pay 19K to nearly 30K K annually, before I saw significant benefits. I concluded it was a rip-off.

The only way I see the ACA working, is for those at lower incomes that receive large government subsidies. Of course if you go low enough in income, you've got Medicaid which is not only great insurance, but you pay virtually nothing out-of-pocket. Medicare is great too, with a good supplement that is moderate in price.

But the ACA? Nope. It doesn't work for us ordinary folks. It's more of the same insurance rip-off, except with slightly better protection than when the insurance market was unregulated. And the Mandate was an abominable disaster - good ridance!

If your employees were/are happy with their ACA, I suspect they are fairly low payed. Because if they're making anymore than 40 or 50K, the ACA premiums & coverage sucks.

Though I am a huge proponent of single payer, the PPACA did serve as a solid half step in the right direction. I fully disagree with you that it was a failure. In this case, compromise worked.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "half-step" better, and it is no better than some moderate insurance regulations. In it's original design, with the Mandate, it was an abomination!

As long as we're dealing with the insurance companies for primary insurance, we're getting ripped-off and screwed over.


Again, I think the PPACA is great. Then again, my state (Colorado) embraced it so we had great options. I will not agree with you that it was a half-assed failure; it was a half-assed (Yes, we should have full single payer) success. I think the polling on this supports my view of this.

Meh. I've had my say. I've got tons of Canadian relatives, and my wife's got tons of them in Britain. While I do not agree with the two countries' public provider aspect to single-payer, talk to some of them about the financial aspects of their medical care. We, by comparison, are in the stone-age, with predatory corporations between us and our healthcare.

Though I generally agree, the fact that we elected Trump (and too many voters would do so again) would be my prima facie argument against that statement.

Switching to this topic, alright you've made a good point!
 
I wish it wasn't. President Washington warned us about this...


Georgie was dead-right in his assessment. Political parties usurp the democratic process.
 
Ok.

Here is a list of events held during the 2016 general election and in what states they were held in:
View attachment 67404961

Do you think that candidates would travel to Iowa and New Hampshire (keep in mind--these are statistics from the general election; not the primaries) if all that mattered was the popular vote?

This chart proves my point for me. The electoral college doesn't get small states a seat at the table. It gets swing states a seat at the table. Nobody pays attention to North Dakota because it's solid red. The Democrat isn't gonna win, and even if there were a chance, all that effort for 3 electoral votes? Who gives a crap. Montana? Do people in live there? New York got zero because it's a democratic lock. Look at all these states with a big fat zero, or a 1. How's that for fairness?

Meanwhile, look what the electoral college does to California and Texas. Conservatives in California and liberals in Texas practically have no reason to show up. Not only is their vote basically not counted, their vote actually gets counted for the other party. Six million people in California voted for Donald Trump and their "share" of the electoral vote was given to Joe Biden. An entire third of California's population got anti-represented!

The system had a function two hundred years ago when the disparity in state populations was smaller and party politics was not so polarized. (alliteration) Today? Best as I can tell, it is simply not performing this alleged function.

In trying to defend the electoral college you linked a webpage that explicitly exists to support eliminating the electoral college! How did you think this was gonna work!?
 
Last edited:
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
Ranked voting. It's definitely the best system because going to popular vote does nothing to end the two party system. We have to have a system that actually encourages people to vote for good candidates and not just the candidate that is.... I hate even saying this.... the lesser of two evils. Geez louise
 
Ranked voting. It's definitely the best system because going to popular vote does nothing to end the two party system. We have to have a system that actually encourages people to vote for good candidates and not just the candidate that is.... I hate even saying this.... the lesser of two evils. Geez louise
while i agree the two party system sucks ass i disagree with your claim that it does "nothing when mathematically it opens the door more so than now. it most certainly creates a system where it would be easier
i also think a popular vote would start to hurt the two party system and make people bolder (candidates) and willing to break from stereotypes and the norms

its just my opinion but i think a popular vote breeds Rose perot . . NO NOT THE MAN lol but a candidate like him that could start to splinter things and then even chop things up enough where we never have a 2 party system . .canidate wise anyway

i want it to be we the people as mush as possible, nothign does that fully but the popular vote and the OP comes close. How would you do your ranked voting to make sure not so many voices are silenced or some voice dont have 5 times the power?
 
A popularity contest with the MSM and big tech running the show, no thanks.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

6 yrs of gaslighting has given people TDS, and a lot of them don’t know they have it and/or deny it and use it as a deflection technique. The puppet masters train well, especially with the propaganda and brainwashing.
 
This chart proves my point for me. The electoral college doesn't get small states a seat at the table. It gets swing states a seat at the table. Nobody pays attention to North Dakota because it's solid red. The Democrat isn't gonna win, and even if there were a chance, all that effort for 3 electoral votes? Who gives a crap. Montana? Do people in live there? New York got zero because it's a democratic lock. Look at all these states with a big fat zero, or a 1. How's that for fairness?
New Hampshire and Iowa got 21 visits a piece or something like that. Small states.


Meanwhile, look what the electoral college does to California and Texas. Conservatives in California and liberals in Texas practically have no reason to show up. Not only is their vote basically not counted, their vote actually gets counted for the other party. Six million people in California voted for Donald Trump and their "share" of the electoral vote was given to Joe Biden. An entire third of California's population got anti-represented!
That is the reason I think we should change the Electoral College to include not only getting 270 EVs but also getting the plurality of the popular vote to become the President elect. Every vote would count.
The system had a function two hundred years ago when the disparity in state populations was smaller and party politics was not so polarized. (alliteration) Today? Best as I can tell, it is simply not performing this alleged function.
Okay, what would you prefer instead?
In trying to defend the electoral college you linked a webpage that explicitly exists to support eliminating the electoral college! How did you think this was gonna work!?
It worked beautifully. It showed that 2 small states got a shitload of attention from the candidates. Precisely what the Electoral College was supposed to do.

I think it's ridiculous that the overall popular vote plays no role in deciding who the President is. Its nuts that the man or woman who gets the most votes may not become President. In my system it's at least taken into account. If the leading vote-getter doesn't get the Electoral college as well, the 12th Amendment takes over.
 
No.

I’m not for a national popular vote. Voters are stupid. We have elected a lot of stupid people to various different offices.
I’m a fan of checks and balances.
So the voters are stupid? And instead of the majority of the stupid voters electing the President, you support a minority of the stupid voters electing the President. That's what we have now.
 
Nope. Congressional districts are gerrymandered.
There is that too....of all of the ideas on rejiggering the Electoral College, this is the most suspect.

I think if you were to give every respondent some truth serum, they would acknowledge that in the year 2022 with instantaneous communication, automated vote counting, and all of the safeguards we have in place that it is insane that we still have a system where the person who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win the contest.

At the same time, they would likely acknowledge that the genius of the EC is that it elevates the small states.

Seems to me that the best of both worlds would to have a system that forces a candidate to win both the 270 Electoral College Votes as well as get the plurality of the direct popular votes.
 
New Hampshire and Iowa got 21 visits a piece or something like that. Small states.





Okay, what would you prefer instead?

It worked beautifully. It showed that 2 small states got a shitload of attention from the candidates. Precisely what the Electoral College was supposed to do.

I think it's ridiculous that the overall popular vote plays no role in deciding who the President is. Its nuts that the man or woman who gets the most votes may not become President. In my system it's at least taken into account. If the leading vote-getter doesn't get the Electoral college as well, the 12th Amendment takes over.
Two small states got a shitload of attention and every other small state got near zero attention.

There are more under-represented small states than there are over-represented, using your metric, which means the system is absolutely not performing this function. The variable deciding this attention is how competitive a state is, not how small it is.

I'm really at a loss here. There are literally more examples against your idea than there are for it, using the data you provided. How can you possibly say this supports the argument?

That is the reason I think we should change the Electoral College to include not only getting 270 EVs but also getting the plurality of the popular vote to become the President elect. Every vote would count.
The winner of 2000 and 2016 would have been... who, exactly?
 
Last edited:
Blame California
Winner Take All.​

More votes for Romney than the total
votes of some states combined.
Yet Romney got no EC votes from California.


California is just too big for
winner take all!

I still like Congressional District representation.


Moi






Canada-10.gif





 
Two small states got a shitload of attention and every other small state got near zero attention.
And there are larger states that also got near zero attention.
There are more under-represented small states than there are over-represented, using your metric, which means the system is absolutely not performing this function. The variable deciding this attention is how competitive a state is, not how small it is.
Correct. And how much attention would the small population states have gotten if they had only their sparse populations to entice said attention? We know--we have stats of candidate visits--how much they get in the current system. I'd like to hear the logic on why changing to a direct popular vote would benefit the small states? I've demonstrated already that some counties in more populous states have more potential votes than other entire states.

What you'd see is every small population region (state, county, etc...) ignored in a Presidential election.
I'm really at a loss here. There are literally more examples against your idea than there are for it, using the data you provided. How can you possibly say this supports the argument?
Actually you're wrong. There are no examples against my idea. Forcing the President Elect to win the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote is the best of both worlds. You still get the inflate buy in from the rural states along with a true democratic ideal that the wishes of the majority should carry the day as it does in every other election in the nation.
The winner of 2000 and 2016 would have been... who, exactly?
What would happen in the scenario of the 12th amendment is that each state delegation would vote as one. You get 50 votes in the House; not 435. If the vote was done by party line, Bush and Trump would have both won.

You never told us what your system would entail if we got rid of the Electoral College.
 
The winner of 2000 and 2016 would have been... who, exactly?
and thats a good question because the answer more than likely amounts to the majority of the people's voices being silenced, no thanks

I want a popular vote or a system that silences less votes than we do now. Both the OP system and Popular vote does that.
 
Back
Top Bottom