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

[AGENT J]

Redistricting is not about raw votes, but distributing your votes in a strategic manner over-representing your voter population.

This would skew your proposed system, in relation to more accurately reflecting the popular vote.

correct my system would more accurately reflect the popular vote than an EC winner take all system

 

[Greenbeard]

A popular gives power to the big population zones instead of distributing it out to the states.

It gives power to the American voters.

 

[BirdinHand]

to avoid having your posts look so stupid and or dishonest maybe reread the op slower

this way in the future you can avoid having your posts destroyed over and over again by facts when you double down on factual wrong moronic claims
wow that has to be embarrassing LMAO
you're welcome!

Not my fault you mention the ONLY two states that have proportional awarding of EC votes, don't understand HOW they award their EC votes and want to create a completely new, random system out of thin air.

Perhaps don't mention states that already HAVE a system if you are not talking about the system they use.

 

[Chomsky]

interesting it took such a turn when it did?

View attachment 67404462

Wow!

Yep, that's when the flaws in the system became more apparent to the masses.

I always said the good that will come out of Trump will be in his causing the everyman to gain knowledge of our systems' strengths & weaknesses, as Trump & his cadre test them!

 

[AGENT J]

Not my fault you mention the ONLY two states that have proportional awarding of EC votes, don't understand HOW they award their EC votes and want to create a completely new, random system out of thin air.

BWHAHAHAHAH i see the choice was made to make a triggered meltdown post based on dodges, deflections and more lies


we all saw that coming!!
in the future read slower and understand what was ACTUALLY writing and you can avoid your posted mistakes and failures
fact remains your claims were wrong, thanks for playing!

 

[AGENT J]

Wow!

Yep, that's when the flaws in the system became more apparent to the masses.

I always said the good that will come out of Trump will be in his causing the everyman to gain knowledge of our systems' strengths & weaknesses, as Trump & his cadre test them!

i have to say i didn't know it took such a turn when it did
seems for many on the right they became against it once Obama was president, interesting . . . .

 

[Chomsky]

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

Bingo! The bolded might be accurate. In Agent J's proposed system, if I understand his proposal accurately, the Presidential race would seem be the same proportions as the House.

 

[BirdinHand]

Bingo! The bolded might be accurate. In Agent J's proposed system, if I understand his proposal accurately, the Presidential race would seem be the same proportions as the House.

According to him, he doesn't want to award them based on the system that Nebraska and Maine use.

He wants to create some other proportional award system - but he hasn't clearly said what that is.

 

[Chomsky]

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

Hm. On second thought, maybe not?

If the district ballots allow for vote-splitting, then it's possible those districts could split I suppose.

 

[Chomsky]

It does, because the electoral votes are based on congressional districts which are heavily gerrymandered in many states, hence do not reflect the will of the people.

Exactly!

 

[AGENT J]

He wants to create some other proportional award system - but he hasn't clearly said what that is.

?????

you mean besides the OP saying what i want and then giving examples of how PA, Cali and texas would do it on popular vote? and then further explaining how the basic math works for states that only have three ECs?
oooooooooops another post based on dishonesty or ignorance goes down in flames and bites the dust LMAO

 

[MamboDervish]

this is where the wheels fall off, what states are you claiming wouldn't split?

States with the lowest number of EC votes.

correct me if im wrong but to the best of my knowledge i think only like 2 states didn't have at least a 33% popular vote split with also only 3 ECs so that means every state would of had a split
id gladly take 2 or 3 sates not splitting vs 48

So you're assuming that the states that vote 66.7% red should get 2 out of 3 red EC votes, and the party that only pulls 21% should get 1 EC vote? Why should they get a third if they didn't get a third of the votes? Because that is what we're talking about.

The place where the wheels come off your argument is your assumptions about how many states will buy into it. Here's a newsflash for you:

THE STATES HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE POWER TO SPLIT THEIR EC VOTES IF THEY WANTED TO!

Nothing has changed. You still remain in denial that the likelihood of getting 48 states to adopt your policy is about the same as winning the next PowerBall lottery.

 

[Chomsky]

Just get rid of it.

Yep. Halfway measures often fail, as we saw with the ACA.

 

[upsideguy]

Yep. Halfway measures often fail, as we saw with the ACA.

I actually think the PPACA has been pretty successful (though it could have been much better). I see your point, but do not think the PPACA is a good example of your point.

 

[StillBallin75]

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.

This take makes zero sense. As long as I've been alive, the winner take all system of the EC has only served to screw Democrats.

I'm sure they'd gladly give up the "large buckets" you speak of so that less densely populated red states are overrepresented less.

 

[Chomsky]

the ratio is set up on popular vote so again it doesn't matter how the districts are done
unless you are suggesting that there's a bunch of red or blue states gerrymandered in a fashion then they have somewhere it the realm of 500% more ec votes than they should and others have 500% less it would not be a factor

Yes, the bolded is it exactly! That's why your system will never accurately reflect the popular vote, similar to the House. The Senate will never reflect the pop vote either, but that's a whole 'nother manner!

 

[AGENT J]

States with the lowest number of EC votes.

yes last election there were only lie 2 or 3 and the rest would split

So you're assuming that the states that vote 66.7% red should get 2 out of 3 red EC votes, and the party that only pulls 21% should get 1 EC vote? Why should they get a third if they didn't get a third of the votes? Because that is what we're talking about.

no i specially said 33% and that's how math works, you just quoted me
i never said 21% should get a vote in the ratio system

i littlerally just pointed out only 2 or 3 states didn't get a split of at least 33% and then they wouldn't split but 48 or so other states would
so no that's not what we are talking about

so i ask again what states are you talking about because it doesn't really seem like there are many at all

The place where the wheels come off your argument is your assumptions about how many states will buy into it. Here's a newsflash for you:
THE STATES HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE POWER TO SPLIT THEIR EC VOTES IF THEY WANTED TO!

Nothing has changed. You still remain in denial that the likelihood of getting 48 states to adopt your policy is about the same as winning the next PowerBall lottery.

factually wrong again because i never made any such claim, in fact, i said its unlikely a system like this would exist but i want to know people's feelings about it anyway. so those wheels remain on
try to avoid strawman in the future because they never work

 

[AGENT J]

Yes, the bolded is it exactly!

youll have to show me that math cause i don't see it anywhere in regards to a ratio system

That's why your system will never accurately reflect the popular vote, similar to the House. The Senate will never reflect the pop vote either, but that's a whole 'nother manner!

correct THAT is true it will NOT reflect the popular vote 100% and i never said it will
but it most certainly would be closer than the current system of winner take all

 

[mrjurrs]

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

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member states' presidential electors to the candidate that receives the most votes nationwide. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation."

 

[jdog21]

Just looking at the smaller states
Alaska
Montana
Wyoming
Vermont
Delaware
South Dakota
North Dakota
Washington DC
Hawaii
Idaho
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Maine
The 2020 would have been dead even Between Biden and Trump. Instead of the +4 electorates for Biden

 

[Chomsky]

I actually think the PPACA has been pretty successful (though it could have been much better). I see your point, but do not think the PPACA is a good example of your point.

Oh, I do think it's a great example.

The mandate was found un-constitutional, and the system still sucks for the vast majority. Have you used it? Most still hate it, they just hate it a little less than what they had.

There's no comparison with a true single-payer/private-provider system, and if the two systems were placed side-by-side to the American people, the ACA would be deserted in a NY minute!

 

[MamboDervish]

yes last election there were only lie 2 or 3 and the rest would split

no i specially said 33% and that's how math works, you just quoted me
i never said 21% should get a vote in the ratio system

But that's exactly what we're talking about. Look at the numbers for .... Wyoming, North Dakota, etc. etc. Trump pulled 2/3rds of the vote while Clinton pulled less than 25%.

i littlerally just pointed out only 2 or 3 states didn't get a split of at least 33% and then they wouldn't split but 48 or so other states would
so no that's not what we are talking about

so i ask again what states are you talking about because it doesn't really seem like there are many at all


factually wrong again because i never made any such claim, in fact, i said its unlikely a system like this would exist but i want to know people's feelings about it anyway. so those wheels remain on
try to avoid strawman in the future because they never work

You can tap dance until you open on Broadway, but you can't sidestep the FACT that the states have ALWAYS had the power to split their EC votes, BUT THEY HAVEN'T.

Feel free to remain in denial.
And be sure to let me know as soon as your "solution" comes to fruition.

 

[jdog21]

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member states' presidential electors to the candidate that receives the most votes nationwide. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation."

I personally like it better when during a proportionate EC like purposed the single left out Electorate goes to the states overall popular vote winner. It prevents times when a candidate who only receives 25% of the vote in a state from receiving the same amount of EC votes as the person who won the state with 75% of the vote.

 

[Chomsky]

agreed

this isnt the days of the wants and needs of a state might not be known because their message got lost on horseback or took 3 months to get to Washington

Nor do we live in a society where we believe we are too illiterate & uneducated to wisely choose for ourselves, so we need politicians to do it for us!

 

[StillBallin75]

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

I personally don't give a shit when irrational people (who have a vested interest in maintaining an unjust and unfair system) panic over the implementation of one person one vote.

You can't reason them out of that place, because they didn't reason themselves into it.