SFC Ollie
Still Marching
The majority is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.
But you know that.........
But you know that.........
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The majority is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.
But you know that.........
What is the difference between a "proportional" Electoral College and eliminating the Electoral College completely and using just the popular vote?
If, for example, all states have 10 EC votes each.
Then you can't just lobby the two largest populations in the two largest states to get the most votes overall.
You would have to spread out the votes to collect as many electoral votes from as many states as you could.
You might still flock to the largest cities PER STATE, as is happening now.
But you would not just focus on the largest cities in the nation leaving out the other states altogether that have the same # of EC votes.
But lobbying for majority of the vote in Texas, or Rhode Island, or Hawaii would be the same if all the states have the same # of votes, and you get up to 10 points per state by %.
This idea could be adjusted, where instead of all states being equal at 10 points, some states could have more or less; but not so drastic that the small states are left out and the big states are lobbied more than others. Maybe a small difference to make them more equal.
P.S. The other idea I would like to explore is the winning candidate requiring majority of BOTH the popular vote AND the electoral vote to win. But to avoid the need for a runoff, any other additional parties besides the top two would need to be eliminated using some kind of system BEFORE the election, so that requires more work to develop so that third parties can still use elections for publicizing ideas or issues to influence the public, govt and major parties. By requiring candidates to win BOTH, it would address concerns on both sides (of not voiding popular votes by keeping the electoral college, and NOT turning unfair focus only on the most populous cities or states if the elector college is removed). If you win both types of votes, there is no question you have the majority.
Actually Nebraska and Maine can legally split their electoral votes. they are the only two states to allow this.
The E C was placed there for a purpose. I have to agree with that purpose....
I thought the Electors could vote their conscience.
They pledge to vote for the candidate that reflects the state's popular vote.
But I thought legally they could vote freely, as that is their job to serve as a check on the vote, and if for some reason they feel there is an anomaly or reason for voting otherwise, that is their job to make that determination.
The key reason that the EC was created is long past now, that being a geographically wide-spread electorate with limited transportation. Localized regions would elect a man to represent them at national elections, to cast 'their' vote as directed. With our technology, we are able to establish a more accurate 'one person, one vote' type of system that would more fairly reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate. So, to abolish the EC altogether is not unrealistic. If politically expedient to retain the EC, then the votes should be divided proportionally among all candidates. Some states do divide EC votes proportionally, I believe.
Dear GW: A friend at work also cited the geographic/transportation/communication limitations back then in history. He said the same thing, that today's technology eliminates that issue. His opinion on the EC was to keep it, so it serves its purpose. He did NOT agree to the idea of proportional splitting but he said Electors are free to vote however they wish.
They do not necessarily need to vote for the Candidate or Party that is expected.
He said he would rather change the dynamic of the state relations with federal govt, and put more emphasis on states checking or preventing federal overreaching. So he visualized other ways to strengthen state representation in govt decisions, and leaving the EC as is.
Give the popular majority to the two senatorial votes.
Give the Congressional district electoral votes to the party that wins the district.
Thus, a state with a GOP majority gets the two senator's votes and whatever congressional districts go Dem or Pub are awarded accordingly.
Unsubscribe.
The EC should be done away with.
Bad idea in modern times.
The Majority should pick the President.
If, for example, all states have 10 EC votes each.
Then you can't just lobby the two largest populations in the two largest states to get the most votes overall.
...
But lobbying for majority of the vote in Texas, or Rhode Island, or Hawaii would be the same if all the states have the same # of votes, and you get up to 10 points per state by %.
It doesn't do what you want it to do. Under this system, you'd actually get landslides from Republicans due to southern/western support. 75% in tiny Wyoming offsets 65% support from California?
I'm thinking we should return to our Nation's founding and whoever wins the most votes is president, whoever wins the second largest number of votes is then vice-president.
The EC should be done away with.
Bad idea in modern times.
The Majority should pick the President.
You mean plurality right? Majority means over 50%. That would mean national run-offs. I'm not in favor of that.
The best idea I have heard is that whomever wins should have to win both the current configuration of the Electoral College AND the popular vote. Anything less and the current "plan B" kicks in of the House electing the President and the Senate electing the VP.
The idea appeals to me because it does keeps the candidates in the shackles of having to pay attention to smaller states such as Nevada and Iowa. At the same time, it speaks to the basic fairness that the person who becomes the leader of the country should get the plurality of the votes cast by the voters.