I gave you a way to make the Electoral votes be given to candidates by their percentage of the vote total, you ignored it completely. Biden would have won by a bigger margin, while getting no increase in powers of office.
National vote proposal was not accepted by the Founding Fathers, which you would have known if you read the Federalist papers.
No. That still runs afoul of the first past the post problem.
Yeah, I've read the federalist papers. The federalist papers make it clear they didn't intend you or me to have any say on the president, which is why the electoral college was instituted in the first place. Hamilton specifically says he wanted the electoral college to be men of good judgement who would exclude demagogues and populists exactly like Donald Trump. These guys were supposed to be exercising independent judgement for us poor ignorant SOBs. Keep in mind, they didn't even see the party system coming so they clearly didn't quite foresee some of their unintended consequences.
You want to keep the EC as it is, I suggest going to a rank choice voting with proportional distribution of electoral college votes.
I actually think a percentage of the states votes should factor in how many EC votes be distributed to each candidate, this gives third party candidates a better chance to win, since the winner take all to a single person is no longer in effect.
It is a LOT harder to manipulate 50 individual states voting totals than it is to manipulate a single national voting total.
Elections would still be locally managed it’s just the tallies would be aggregated.
Right now, elections are decided by a few swing states. That’s all you have to steal.
If the EC was intended to prevent small number of people to be determinant of the outcome of an election, its doing a garbage job.
Swing states change over time, if you even look at the voting patterns over the last 150 years, you will see that most of the time swing states don't exist or matter, because the winner won overwhelmingly, which happens a lot more often than you think. Don't get so caught up on the "swing states" concept so much.
You’re glossing over things because they don’t happen “most of the time”. Most of the time the EC and national popular vote are the same so by that logic it’s irrelevant.
Swing states hav been relevant for the last 50 years and aren’t going anywhere. We aren’t going back to elections like 1972 in our lifetimes.
It is clear you haven't studied the Presidential voting patterns of the last 150 years.
Ronald Reagan won both times by a landslide, Bush I won big too in 1988, no swing states then either.
You need to understand what Swing States really are, you seem to suggest differently, when actually they are states with two main possibilities.
States where neither party has a clear vote majority, or voters ignore party altogether and chose individual candidates aside from party affiliation.
Here is a
LINK to Thought Co.
Excerpt:
Swing Voters and Their Role
States that shift back and forth between candidates of both major political parties in presidential elections could be evenly divided between
voters registered Republican and Democratic. Or they could have large numbers of
swing voters, those who tend to vote for individual candidates and not the party and have no loyalty to a party.
======
Swing states only matters when you have weak or mediocre people running for office.
The list of swing states in the link are fluid and can change every 4 years. Trump Won Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Penn in 2016, lost all them in 2020.
You think New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts should stop voting overwhelmingly for a Democrat candidate as they have for many elections now?
Snicker.....
www.breitbart.com
