PA Electoral College Plan

[jillian]

I like the idea of getting rid of the EC in its' current form but I don't think it should be a straight popular vote.

The EC would be well served if there were a rotation where by 1/3 of the States had proportonal electoral college votes, 1/3 had winner take all, and the final third had straight popular vote where they had no electoral votes up for grabs but just a number of votes to be had.

To win, you have to win the Presidency, you have to win both the EC and the popular vote across all 3 platforms.

For example:

If Romney/Cain or Obama won 275 electoral votes across the 2/3 of the states and lost the popular vote across all 50 states, he would not be the President-Elect; the HOR would decide.

This popular vote enhancement would throw the doors open for 3rd party candidates depending on the states that are in play that year. Also, in the proportional states, if he or she gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the electors. This may not be enough to put a Green Party or Libertarian Party candidate into the Oval office but Romney/Cain and Obama will have to compete with these guys and gals.

no one is talking about "losing the popular vote across all 50 states". in fact, if you lose the popular vote across all 50 states, you wouldn't get the electoral college. the situations that are problematic are those like the 2000 election.

 

[JoeB131]

I think they should split electoral votes...

well, i actually don't think there should be an electoral college anymore. it was a way for small states to vote land, because they lacked people. and i've never understood why someone in north dakota's vote should be worth more than mine.

That is why the electoral college wil never change. You would need small population states to agree to forfeit power

Not necessarily. I think amending the constitution might be difficult for that reason. Although I think that a sense of fairness might change people's minds.

But if the larger states all followed PA's lead, the EC would become largely meaningless. INstead of a state by state fight, it'd be a district by district fight.

I live in IL-8. A swing district. It's changed hands twice in the last decade. (I used to live in IL-6, but they moved the borders, the bastards!) Under the PA plan, if IL adopted it, both parties would work very hard for that on Electoral vote.

 

[rightwinger]

I think they should split electoral votes...

well, i actually don't think there should be an electoral college anymore. it was a way for small states to vote land, because they lacked people. and i've never understood why someone in north dakota's vote should be worth more than mine.

That is why the electoral college wil never change. You would need small population states to agree to forfeit power

no matter that each individual voter has per capita power greater than mine does in NY? isn't there something wrong with that?

We can't get Congress to agree to raise the debt ceiling in order to prevent default. You think we could get small states to agree to equal representation?

It would take an Amendment to the constitution and 75% of the states agreeing

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

INstead of a state by state fight, it'd be a district by district fight.

I doubt that would be any better. If you think gerrymandering is bad now, move to a system like that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I like the idea of getting rid of the EC in its' current form but I don't think it should be a straight popular vote.

The EC would be well served if there were a rotation where by 1/3 of the States had proportonal electoral college votes, 1/3 had winner take all, and the final third had straight popular vote where they had no electoral votes up for grabs but just a number of votes to be had.

To win, you have to win the Presidency, you have to win both the EC and the popular vote across all 3 platforms.

That would be an incredibly confusing system.

This popular vote enhancement would throw the doors open for 3rd party candidates depending on the states that are in play that year.

There is nothing about the EC that is preventing third party candidates from winning now.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

no matter that each individual voter has per capita power greater than mine does in NY? isn't there something wrong with that?

For the first 40 years or so we didn't get to vote for the president at all. He was elected by the House of Representatives. Of course, back in those days the president was more like the Queen of England, a figurehead more than anything else.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If that happens, I see no reason to remain a country any longer and it would be time for us and the Progressive to part company

 

[Amelia]

A new word for me!

Condign!

It pays to increase your word power. ;-)

 

[jillian]

If that happens, I see no reason to remain a country any longer and it would be time for us and the Progressive to part company

Buh bye...

 

[jillian]

no matter that each individual voter has per capita power greater than mine does in NY? isn't there something wrong with that?

For the first 40 years or so we didn't get to vote for the president at all. He was elected by the House of Representatives. Of course, back in those days the president was more like the Queen of England, a figurehead more than anything else.

and blacks were 3/5 of a person

and women didn't vote

only landed gentry mattered.

and white men owned black men.

presumably we've progressed as a society... which is why i'm never overly impressed when people start ranting about "the founders". they started something very good... that doesn't mean everything they did is something that should be adhered to today.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

no matter that each individual voter has per capita power greater than mine does in NY? isn't there something wrong with that?

For the first 40 years or so we didn't get to vote for the president at all. He was elected by the House of Representatives. Of course, back in those days the president was more like the Queen of England, a figurehead more than anything else.

and blacks were 3/5 of a person

and women didn't vote

only landed gentry mattered.

and white men owned black men.

presumably we've progressed as a society... which is why i'm never overly impressed when people start ranting about "the founders". they started something very good... that doesn't mean everything they did is something that should be adhered to today.

I don't think we should go back to the president being appointed, but I do think we should repeal the 17th Amendment and do away with the popular election of Senators, but that's a whole other topic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive can turn their states into North Korea and East Germany.

Have fun!

 

[candycorn]

I like the idea of getting rid of the EC in its' current form but I don't think it should be a straight popular vote.

The EC would be well served if there were a rotation where by 1/3 of the States had proportonal electoral college votes, 1/3 had winner take all, and the final third had straight popular vote where they had no electoral votes up for grabs but just a number of votes to be had.

To win, you have to win the Presidency, you have to win both the EC and the popular vote across all 3 platforms.

That would be an incredibly confusing system.

This popular vote enhancement would throw the doors open for 3rd party candidates depending on the states that are in play that year.

There is nothing about the EC that is preventing third party candidates from winning now.

True: As I've always said to the Ron Paul supporters, all he has to do is get more votes than everyone else and he'll win. Theres nothing built in preventing him from winning.

But lets get real; the chances of WINNING are pretty much zilch. In the Winner-Take-All method, there is little need to address the concerns of a third party since their support is not a game changer. All you need is a plurality of the votes and presto; you get 100% of the electoral votes for that state.

As for being "incredibly confusing", once every 4 years; we can't wrap our head around a concept to where Texas will be a proportional state and Louisiana may be a WTA state? If you're right; we shouldn't hold elections.

The bottom line is that we need to make sure our President wins both the popular and electoral college votes. Since that can be done with winning less than 25 states if I recall, I think having some states as proportional raises the hurdle considerably.

 

[jillian]

For the first 40 years or so we didn't get to vote for the president at all. He was elected by the House of Representatives. Of course, back in those days the president was more like the Queen of England, a figurehead more than anything else.

and blacks were 3/5 of a person

and women didn't vote

only landed gentry mattered.

and white men owned black men.

presumably we've progressed as a society... which is why i'm never overly impressed when people start ranting about "the founders". they started something very good... that doesn't mean everything they did is something that should be adhered to today.

I don't think we should go back to the president being appointed, but I do think we should repeal the 17th Amendment and do away with the popular election of Senators, but that's a whole other topic.

i know... rightwingers love that one b/c the tea loons from the house would vote for the senate.

sorry... no offense, but i'll vote for my own senator. i don't even want my rep as my rep.. .much less my proxy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

i know... rightwingers love that one b/c the tea loons from the house would vote for the senate.

No, that is not true. The states (governor and/or state legislative bodies) would appoint their own Senators. It has nothing to do with the House of Representatives. The Senate was created to enforce the Tenth Amendment and protect the states from an overbearing federal government, which is exactly what we've ended up with since the 17th was ratified.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But lets get real; the chances of WINNING are pretty much zilch. In the Winner-Take-All method, there is little need to address the concerns of a third party since their support is not a game changer. All you need is a plurality of the votes and presto; you get 100% of the electoral votes for that state.

And there is nothing preventing a third party candidate from getting a plurality of votes in a state and winning its electoral votes. It's happened several times.

The only people preventing third party candidacies are the voters themselves who have allowed themselves to be manipulated into thinking their only realistic choice is an R or D and that a vote for anyone else is somehow "wasted."

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's ultimately a states issue, and they have the constitutional right to choose their electors however they damn well please. But I tend to support proportional distribution of electors.

 

[JoeB131]

INstead of a state by state fight, it'd be a district by district fight.

I doubt that would be any better. If you think gerrymandering is bad now, move to a system like that.

Again, not necessarily. People would pay a lot more attention to how the districts are carved up, and they'd put a lot more pressure on their state legislatures.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

i know... rightwingers love that one b/c the tea loons from the house would vote for the senate.

No, that is not true. The states (governor and/or state legislative bodies) would appoint their own Senators. It has nothing to do with the House of Representatives. The Senate was created to enforce the Tenth Amendment and protect the states from an overbearing federal government, which is exactly what we've ended up with since the 17th was ratified.

Jillian is a female Rdean, the only fact she remembers is "I Hate Republicans"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

INstead of a state by state fight, it'd be a district by district fight.

I doubt that would be any better. If you think gerrymandering is bad now, move to a system like that.

Again, not necessarily. People would pay a lot more attention to how the districts are carved up, and they'd put a lot more pressure on their state legislatures.

Yes, we're notorious for paying close attention