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

[AGENT J]

Blame California

​

that makes no sense

 

[Moi621]

that makes no sense

Because you edited the quote.

Please do not quote me without noting
you made an edit to support your upload
or otherwise

Make sense?


Moi

@AGENT J is ​

 

[AGENT J]

Because you edited the quote.

wrong it still made no sense, try again

 

[dncc]

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.

The issue with going by congressional district is that congressional districts are gerrymandered to deliver a win for one party. I think there were something like 14 districts where the district winner was a republican but the district voted for Biden.

The issue with going straight popular vote is this: What happens if you have 3, 4, or even 5 viable candidates? The winner may get something like 28 percent.... Do you really want to silence 72% of the population who voted for someone else?

Its all an academic argument anyway; changing the constitution will require the States that have an out-sized footprint to give up that influence. That isn't going to happen.

 

[AGENT J]

The issue with going by congressional district is that congressional districts are gerrymandered to deliver a win for one party. I think there were something like 14 districts where the district winner was a republican but the district voted for Biden.

agreed thats why i want nothing to do with it and a popular vote or what i describe in the OP avoids that

The issue with going straight popular vote is this: What happens if you have 3, 4, or even 5 viable candidates?

that would be AWESOME and what would be best

The winner may get something like 28 percent.... Do you really want to silence 72% of the population who voted for someone else?

they wouldn't be silent they would be heard much better than now
silence does mean "losing" silenced when i refer to it is their vote not even being seen in reality

again when a state has 5 ECS each EC is 20%
right now under the current system 100% of the vote goes to the winner even if 49% went to another candidate
that means 49% was silenced

in the system in the op if the vote is 51% vs 49% then 3ECs would go one way and 2ECs would go another. Only about 9% are silenced

if there would be 4 candidates like you said and say candidate A got 40%, and B 29% and C 21% and D 9%
then A would get 3ECs (winner heavy like i said earlier), B and C would get 1 each and D gets none

so here about 19% is silenced between 3 candidates

id rather take19 or 9% silenced vs 49%

 

[Moi621]

wrong it still made no sense, try again

Editing quotes seems to be your manner.
ttfn

 

[BirdinHand]

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.

I really like this.

 

[AGENT J]

Editing quotes seems to be your manner.

weird you post doesn't change the reality that your post about California made no sense nor does it seem you can support it in any way, let us know when you can LOL

 

[Moi621]

weird you post doesn't change the reality that your post about California made no sense nor does it seem you can support it in any way, let us know when you can LOL

Take your meds
LOL

And the last word between us

 

[AGENT J]

Take your meds

aaaaaaand another post that doesn't change the reality your post about California made no sense LMAO
please let us know when you can support your claim, thanks!

 

[dncc]

agreed thats why i want nothing to do with it and a popular vote or what i describe in the OP avoids that

that would be AWESOME and what would be best

they wouldn't be silent they would be heard much better than now
silence does mean "losing" silenced when i refer to it is their vote not even being seen in reality

again when a state has 5 ECS each EC is 20%
right now under the current system 100% of the vote goes to the winner even if 49% went to another candidate
that means 49% was silenced

in the system in the op if the vote is 51% vs 49% then 3ECs would go one way and 2ECs would go another. Only about 9% are silenced

if there would be 4 candidates like you said and say candidate A got 40%, and B 29% and C 21% and D 9%
then A would get 3ECs (winner heavy like i said earlier), B and C would get 1 each and D gets none

so here about 19% is silenced between 3 candidates

id rather take19 or 9% silenced vs 49%

So, correct me if I'm wrong here...

You'd keep the 270 Electoral College vote framework but award the electors based on the percent of each state's popular vote ignoring congressional districts?

For example,

State A has 40 electoral votes. Candidate Smith gets 100% of the votes in State A. So they get 40 electoral votes.

State A has 40 electoral votes. Candidate Smith gets 80% of the votes in State A. So they get 32 electoral votes.

State A has 40 electoral votes. Candidate Smith gets 60% of the votes in State A. So they get 24 electoral votes.

Is that right?

 

[NOVA66]

End the EC system and go with the popular vote. Simple

 

[AGENT J]

So, correct me if I'm wrong here...

You'd keep the 270 Electoral College vote framework but award the electors based on the percent of each state's popular vote ignoring congressional districts?

as far as votes for the president goes, yes

For example,

State A has 40 electoral votes. Candidate Smith gets 100% of the votes in State A. So they get 40 electoral votes.

State A has 40 electoral votes. Candidate Smith gets 80% of the votes in State A. So they get 32 electoral votes.

State A has 40 electoral votes. Candidate Smith gets 60% of the votes in State A. So they get 24 electoral votes.

Is that right?

yes in a state with 40 ECs each EC would be equal to about 2.5%, this is what texas will have in 2024, they only had 38 in 2020

but lets use them for an example based on the 40
the vote for texas was this:

Donnie 5,890,347 votes 52.1%
Biden 5,259,126 votes 46.5%
Jo Jorgensen 126,243 votes 1.1%

under the current system, Donnie gets all 40 votes
and around 5,418,765 47.9% are silenced from the state

under the OPs system
Donnie would get 22 votes (55%)
Biden would get 18 votes (45%)

so only 3.9% of the votes are silenced from that state
(1.5% of Biden votes and 1.4% of other votes)
about 330K votes

its also interesting to see the Jo could of got 1 EC vote with just a little more

 

[Deuce]

And there are larger states that also got near zero attention.

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.

They already are ignored. With a couple exceptions for competitive states. The electoral college is supposed to solve this, and it provably is not doing that.

I don't think eliminating the electoral college makes this worse, because turnout across the board becomes much more important. If you want rural conservative votes, you have to appeal to rural conservative votes across the country. And, quite frankly, isn't that what a president should be? Shouldn't a president be appealing to the broader country instead of specific states? We're not electing a president of Iowa, we're electing a president of America. Is catering to specific states what we want?

The idea that a president "would just cater to the big states" is just ignoring literally everything about political ideologies. Voters in Texas aren't going to suddenly vote Democrat in droves just because Joe ****ing Biden pays them more attention.

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.

Except no it doesn't because you immediately "solve" the vote split problem with the least democratic of all options:

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.

Taking the decision entirely out of the hands of the people! This isn't better!!

You never told us what your system would entail if we got rid of the Electoral College.

Popular vote. It's not real complicated.

 

[dncc]

End the EC system and go with the popular vote. Simple

Again, what if you have 4 or 5 viable political parties and the winner gets something like 28%? You really want the President to be the guy or gal who 72% of the nation didn't want?

 

[dncc]

as far as votes for the president goes, yes


yes in a state with 40 ECs each EC would be equal to about 2.5%, this is what texas will have in 2024, they only had 38 in 2020

but lets use them for an example based on the 40
the vote for texas was this:

Donnie 5,890,347 votes 52.1%
Biden 5,259,126 votes 46.5%
Jo Jorgensen 126,243 votes 1.1%

under the current system, Donnie gets all 40 votes
and around 5,418,765 47.9% are silenced from the state

under the OPs system
Donnie would get 22 votes (55%)
Biden would get 18 votes (45%)

so only 3.9% of the votes are silenced from that state
(1.5% of Biden votes and 1.4% of other votes)
about 330K votes

its also interesting to see the Jo could of got 1 EC vote with just a little more

That isn't the worst system ever devised. Still seems as though you're silencing people--more folks than you acknowledge.

Using your example, the Texas Vote.

Trump had 5.8M, Biden had 5.2M. So Trump would get 22 and Biden would get 18. That silences the Jorgensen vote. That, to me, isn't that big a deal.

What is a big deal is this:

For the ease of math, lets say there are 10M votes in Texas instead of 11M.

Trump had 8M, Biden had 2M. Going by percentages; Trump would get 80% of the 40 votes up for grabs, (32) and Biden would get 20% of the 40 votes up for grabs (8). If Trump were to get 100% of the vote, he'd only get 8 more electoral college votes, right? 40.
What is lacking in your system is there is no guarantee (at least that I can see), still, that the overall vote leader--the person who gets the most popular votes--would be the President elect. Hence, the will of the majority isn't guaranteed to be carried out.

 

[AGENT J]

That isn't the worst system ever devised. Still seems as though you're silencing people--more folks than you acknowledge.

nope gives more voices to more people than anything suggested here and whats in place now

Using your example, the Texas Vote.
Trump had 5.8M, Biden had 5.2M. So Trump would get 22 and Biden would get 18. That silences the Jorgensen vote. That, to me, isn't that big a deal.

correct has i pointed out it still would silence 126,243 votes for Jo and total of about 330K voted vs . . . 5,418,765 47. that's a HUGE difference

What is a big deal is this:

For the ease of math, lets say there are 10M votes in Texas instead of 11M.
Trump had 8M, Biden had 2M. Going by percentages; Trump would get 80% of the 40 votes up for grabs, (32) and Biden would get 20% of the 40 votes up for grabs (8). If Trump were to get 100% of the vote, he'd only get 8 more electoral college votes, right? 40.

dramatics aside thats not a big deal at all unless you want to ignore what we have now and what you suggested which is worse as far as silence voters
if what you describe truly bothers you then you should hate what we have now lol cant have it both ways

What is lacking in your system is there is no guarantee (at least that I can see), still, that the overall vote leader--the person who gets the most popular votes--would be the President elect. Hence, the will of the majority isn't guaranteed to be carried out.

see above also not a big deal and never claimed it would
mathematically its be very hard pressed for them not too i don't see that happening actually unless we had like 5 candidates and 3 were really close
once again if this bothers you you should hate both what we have now and what you suggested lol

what strawman are you trying to invent? my system is for people that are queasy about getting rid of the EC and an attempt to ignore less votes than now at the state level, it does that easily
never said there would be no votes silences in fact i pointed out the opposite and never said it would guarantee a match to the popular vote and again i pointed that out also

so really all you've don't here is repeated what I've said and acted like its an issue when in fact its not based on the premise of silencing less voices

 

[MrNiceGuy]

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'm against it only because it's unnecessary to have an EC system at all, if you are just going to allocate EC votes based on popular vote. If we were to go that route, I would support eliminating the EC altogether and just going with a pure popular vote for the President.

I don't, however, think the President should be a pure popular vote for a couple of reasons. One, the President is not an elected King or Roman Dictator. The President is the chief executive of the Executive Department and he is "presiding" over a union of separate sovereign States, not individual people. He represents a union of States, not a single nation. The President needs to represent even states which are nearly empty of population as compared to some other states. We've had a dramatic shift in population over the last century where a pure popular vote would mean that Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago metropolitan areas would essentially control the entire nation. The idea behind a winder take all is that there is a shift in voting power, slightly, to smaller, less populated, states, by virtue of the fact that each State gets 2 votes automatically by virtue of being a State and having 2 Senators. If you shifted it to just a pure popular vote determining who gets the electors, then some states, like Wyoming, wouldn't even get one. And if you gave them one vote automatically, then you are giving them a similar advantage as we are doing now, just not to the same degree.

The change I would be most in favor of would be to eliminate the wasteful popular vote for the Presidency altogether, and I would suggest one of two other systems:

1. Each state gets 1 vote for the President, and that vote is selected by the legislature of that State. First round of voting would involve all registered candidates. If no candidate got a majority of votes of the States, then round two would occur among the top four (4) candidates (or fewer if there are fewer than 4), and then a third round between the top 2 of those 4 candidates, until one candidate gets a majority.
2. Alternatively, I would suggest that the President of the US be selected by the US Congress - both the House and the Senate, with each Congressperson getting 1 vote, and rounds of voting similar to number 1.

I think that would encourage people to be more knowledgeable about their elected legislators.

Nowadays, we really have very little to do with who gets to be in the primaries and who in the primaries has a chance of winning, because consent is manufactured anyway. So, let's let the legislators do it. It works in parliamentary democracies like the UK, where their chief executive, the Prime Minister, is selected by the Parliament, not by popular vote.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm against it only because it's unnecessary to have an EC system at all, if you are just going to allocate EC votes based on popular vote. If we were to go that route, I would support eliminating the EC altogether and just going with a pure popular vote for the President.

this is for people that cant stomach getting rid of the EC

I don't, however, think the President should be a pure popular vote for a couple of reasons. One, the President is not an elected King or Roman Dictator.

who said he was?

The President is the chief executive of the Executive Department and he is "presiding" over a union of separate sovereign States, not individual people. He represents a union of States, not a single nation. The President needs to represent even states which are nearly empty of population as compared to some other states.

do you feel the same way about governors then since everything you said applies to them also. Based on your "logic" and claims doesnt the governor of PA just get elected by Pittsburgh and Philly

We've had a dramatic shift in population over the last century where a pure popular vote would mean that Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago metropolitan areas would essentially control the entire nation.

no it wouldn't, we the people would decide, cities don't vote
math shows MORE people would have their voices heard

The change I would be most in favor of would be to eliminate the wasteful popular vote for the Presidency altogether, and I would suggest one of two other systems:

1. Each state gets 1 vote for the President, and that vote is selected by the legislature of that State. First round of voting would involve all registered candidates. If no candidate got a majority of votes of the States, then round two would occur among the top four (4) candidates (or fewer if there are fewer than 4), and then a third round between the top 2 of those 4 candidates, until one candidate gets a majority.
2. Alternatively, I would suggest that the President of the US be selected by the US Congress - both the House and the Senate, with each Congressperson getting 1 vote, and rounds of voting similar to number 1.

I think that would encourage people to be more knowledgeable about their elected legislators.

Nowadays, we really have very little to do with who gets to be in the primaries and who in the primaries has a chance of winning, because consent is manufactured anyway. So, let's let the legislators do it. It works in parliamentary democracies like the UK, where their chief executive, the Prime Minister, is selected by the Parliament, not by popular vote.

so you want to silence even more voices and open things up to more corruptions/partisanship? no thanks that's insane

 

[MrNiceGuy]

do you feel the same way about governors then since everything you said applies to them also. Based on your "logic" and claims doesnt the governor of PA just get elected by Pittsburgh and Philly

Well, no, because everything I said literally doesn't apply to them also. A governor does not represent a union of sovereign states. He represents one state. That's a big different. When you have 10 or 20 or 50 different States electing one President, then each State has an interest in protecting its equal dignity with other States (as if they were each individual people). No state would want to be in the union, if by being in the union it was taking a back seat to a few other states.

The governor of PA gets elected by a vote of the people of Pennsylvania. If PA was a collection of 20 or 30 separate and independent states which were coming together to form a union of those states, then I would have the same view as I do about the President of the United States. The President is the President of a bunch of States. He's not President of a single state called "America." The States elect the President, not the People. The People elect legislators.

no it wouldn't, we the people would decide, cities don't vote

I know, but States do. That's why there is an electoral college.

To get what I'm saying you need to see that the EC provides extra voting power to the smaller states. The larger states would gain voting power if your idea is kept.

math shows MORE people would have their voices heard

The math doesn't show that at all. Show your work.

so you want to silence even more voices and open things up to more corruptions/partisanship? no thanks that's insane

Not at all. Are you arguing that by the UK having a system where parliament chooses the PM and not the people, that "silences voices?"

 

[AGENT J]

Well, no, because everything I said literally doesn't apply to them also.

yes it does on the state scale

A governor does not represent a union of sovereign states. He represents one state. That's a big different.

since it has counties/municipalities not really the same basic logic applies

When you have 10 or 20 or 50 different States electing one President, then each State has an interest in protecting its equal dignity with other States (as if they were each individual people). No state would want to be in the union, if by being in the union it was taking a back seat to a few other states.

hmmm just like counties/municipalities

The governor of PA gets elected by a vote of the people of Pennsylvania. If PA was a collection of 20 or 30 separate and independent states which were coming together to form a union of those states, then I would have the same view as I do about the President of the United States. The President is the President of a bunch of States. He's not President of a single state called "America." The States elect the President, not the People. The People elect legislators.

so counties/manicaplaities are meaningless to you got it and your logic only magically applies to states, if Philly and Pittsburgh pick the state gov who cares your logic no longer applies . . . .very convincing

I know, but States do. That's why there is an electoral college.

and that's why the EC sucks

To get what I'm saying you need to see that the EC provides extra voting power to the smaller states. The larger states would gain voting power if your idea is kept.

no it wouldn't again as already shown

The math doesn't show that at all. Show your work.

read the thread it does

Not at all

again math proves you are

 

[dncc]

nope gives more voices to more people than anything suggested here and whats in place now

correct has i pointed out it still would silence 126,243 votes for Jo and total of about 330K voted vs . . . 5,418,765 47. that's a HUGE difference

dramatics aside thats not a big deal at all unless you want to ignore what we have now and what you suggested which is worse as far as silence voters
if what you describe truly bothers you then you should hate what we have now lol cant have it both ways

see above also not a big deal and never claimed it would
mathematically its be very hard pressed for them not too i don't see that happening actually unless we had like 5 candidates and 3 were really close
once again if this bothers you you should hate both what we have now and what you suggested lol

what strawman are you trying to invent? my system is for people that are queasy about getting rid of the EC and an attempt to ignore less votes than now at the state level, it does that easily
never said there would be no votes silences in fact i pointed out the opposite and never said it would guarantee a match to the popular vote and again i pointed that out also

so really all you've don't here is repeated what I've said and acted like its an issue when in fact its not based on the premise of silencing less voices

Too much faux contentious pablum there to address individually. I have suggested a sane modification of the system we currently have to where the person who becomes the President Elect must get the most votes. This is the bedrock principle of democracy. Your system doesn't ensure that. Its not as idiotic as using the direct popular vote but it still has that massive loophole.

 

[AGENT J]

Too much faux contentious pablum there to address individually. I have suggested a sane modification of the system we currently have to where the person who becomes the President Elect must get the most votes. This is the bedrock principle of democracy. Your system doesn't ensure that.

you havent proven that in any factual way whatsoever, lying about it doesn't change that LMAO

Its not as idiotic as using the direct popular vote but it still has that massive loophole.

Translation my system does exactly as noted. More power to we the people and silences less individual voices and the fantasy strawmen you choose to focus and the exposed hypocrisy are meaningless to the actual topic. Got it

 

[dncc]

you havent proven that in any factual way whatsoever, lying about it doesn't change that LMAO

Translation my system does exactly as noted. More power to we the people and silences less individual voices and the fantasy strawmen you choose to focus and the exposed hypocrisy are meaningless to the actual topic. Got it

Again, faux-contentious pablum.

Simple question: Does your system guarantee that the person who gets the most votes becomes the President elect?

 

[AGENT J]

Again, faux-contentious pablum.

once again you havent proven that in any factual way whatsoever, lying about it doesn't change that LMAO

Simple question: Does your system guarantee that the person who gets the most votes becomes the President elect?

never claimed it, in fact many times i pointed out it doesn't reflect the popular vote 100%, hence why your retarded strawman is meaningless and keeps failing