A possible suggestion for a Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, New York Prsditential vote pact.

[hadit]

A good start would be to do like Maine and Nebraska, appoint EC votes based on Congressional districts.

Or counties, something like that. Districts are subject to gerrymandering.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I support doing away with the winner takes all current status,...

Every state has this option, presently.
States like CA, IL, and NY - all controlled by the people who want to do away with the electoral college - will never adopt it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yep...

It means that the person who wins the most votes wins... A novel concept...

The US President is for everyone, why do certain people get a larger voice on who gets elected over some others?

In practise, Only a few swing states actually pick the President, this is highly undemocratic...

Ok, but in our system of government, popular vote isn’t how elections are won. But, the compact itself is wrong because it says the state doesn’t care how its citizens voted, they are going to award the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

In practise, Only a few swing states actually pick the President, this is highly undemocratic...

Well no, all states have a say, it’s just that most states are pretty set in their politics and always go for one or the other pretty much every very year. But, that can change.

 

[Anathema]

I see where you are coming from and it does seem better than the present system...

Thank you.

Personally I think Congress voting should be multi-seat districts with preference voting... This is the main voting system worldwide. It would fundamentally change the way US vote, instead of voting against the one you most dislike, you just vote by preference... There is very little to no vote wasting... It breaks the two party system to give a more diverse representation. (This is its biggest problem, turkey's don't vote for thanksgiving.)

I am not a fan of ranked choice voting. I generally have great difficulty finding ONE candidate I’m willing to vote for. I pretty much guarantee there isn’t going to be more than one.

 

[CowboyTed]

You just need 2/3 of congress and 38 states to agree with you.

I am will to be corrected but would this mean States can do what they like within reason:

Plural district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This means it happened in the past...

There is a law from 1967 which states that there is no multiseat districts but it is only an act of congress not in the Constitution (I think)

https://protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Towards-Proportional-Representation-_-March-2023-.pdf

"This report examines a statute enacted by Congress in 1967 — the Uniform Congressional District Act(UCDA), which mandates the use of single-member districts for House elections"

So not impossible, just improbable that Congress would want to change a system which got them elected and many cases practically unopposed.

A multi-seat preference voting would have US having 6-7 parties quite quickly... US Voter would have much more choice without wasting their vote.

The main difference would be in the behaviour of candidates (and members of congress), negative politics is far less rewarding because you could be looking for their voters next preference...

Example: Say there is a pretty Rural Conservative District which has been deemed a 4 seater (normally districts are 3-5 seaters). Last time a 1m voted and the Quota is was at 200,001 votes. Anyone who get 200,001 is guartaneed a seat (think about it and it makes sense, (Vote/(number of Seats +1) +1)

Republicans are pretty sure they have two quotas (400,000 votes) but could be going for a third seat (young candidate who could be good for the future), Democrats think they have one good Quota but might able to get that second seat so they run two candidates, then two independents comes into the race, first one is socially liberal and fiscally conservative and the other is Preacher who wants more social services to the poor...

You can see a pretty exciting race (they would be much more candidates than even the ones I said), the last seat would the nail bitter... But the real winner are the voter, they get more realistic choices...

 

[CowboyTed]

The POTUS is the head of government and the head of state.
He does not represent anyone, other than the United States, when dealing with foreign entities.

No western democracy popularly elects its head of government.

Except France has a directly elected President who runs the Government..

Presidents are elected Ireland, Croatia, Finland, Slovenia,.... that just Europe this year and I missed a few...

Vast majority of Presidential Elections are popular votes... You might be mixing them up with Prime Ministers, they are voted by...

Why is it fair that someone in Wyoming get over twice the representation in votes that a voter from Texas?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I am will to be corrected but would this mean States can do what they like within reason:

Plural district - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This means it happened in the past...

There is a law from 1967 which states that there is no multiseat districts but it is only an act of congress not in the Constitution (I think)

https://protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Towards-Proportional-Representation-_-March-2023-.pdf

"This report examines a statute enacted by Congress in 1967 — the Uniform Congressional District Act(UCDA), which mandates the use of single-member districts for House elections"

So not impossible, just improbable that Congress would want to change a system which got them elected and many cases practically unopposed.

A multi-seat preference voting would have US having 6-7 parties quite quickly... US Voter would have much more choice without wasting their vote.

The main difference would be in the behaviour of candidates (and members of congress), negative politics is far less rewarding because you could be looking for their voters next preference...

Example: Say there is a pretty Rural Conservative District which has been deemed a 4 seater (normally districts are 3-5 seaters). Last time a 1m voted and the Quota is was at 200,001 votes. Anyone who get 200,001 is guartaneed a seat (think about it and it makes sense, (Vote/(number of Seats +1) +1)

Republicans are pretty sure they have two quotas (400,000 votes) but could be going for a third seat (young candidate who could be good for the future), Democrats think they have one good Quota but might able to get that second seat so they run two candidates, then two independents comes into the race, first one is socially liberal and fiscally conservative and the other is Preacher who wants more social services to the poor...

You can see a pretty exciting race (they would be much more candidates than even the ones I said), the last seat would the nail bitter... But the real winner are the voter, they get more realistic choices...

Isn’t that the kind of mess they have in Europe with parliament systems?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am will to be corrected but would this mean States can do what they like within reason:

I read your post to say that Congress, as a whole, to be chosen by the country as a whole and then apportioned to the various parties according to the vote. That's can't happen w/o an amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except France has a directly elected President

Their popularly-elected President is the head of state.
The French Prime Minister is the head of government, and is appointed by the President.

Presidents are elected Ireland, Croatia, Finland, Slovenia,.... that just Europe this year and I missed a few...

Head of government.
Ireland: PM Appointed by the President.
Croatia: PM Appointed by the President
Finland: PM Nominated by the President.
Slovenia PM Nominated by the President

Try again?

Why is it fair that someone in Wyoming get over twice the representation in votes that a voter from Texas?

They don't.
The President does not represent anyone, other than the United States, when dealing with foreign entities.

 

[The Duke]

I have looked at
(Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina) v New York Presidential vote.

Added together each has 29 votes.

On the 2016 and 2020 Presidential the three republican states voted Red as much as New York voted Blue...

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Why? This would mean the four states above would not be taken for granted. Presidential candidates would have to campaign there. It wouldn't make them swing states but at present they have zero influence in the race, zero influence means you get nothing.

I think the winners here would be the voters (not by much but better than zero which they have today).

Just a thought, this is as non partisan as it gets, so could you not descend into a mudslinging match. There are advantages and disadvantages but neither are Red v Blue.

"
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-6-1/ALDE_00013037/

A compact is a treaty or alliance, numbnuts. That's illegal according to the laws of our country.