Candycorn's Idea for Changing the Way We Elect Candidates For President.

[candycorn]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

 

[Darkwind]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

I'm too buzzed right now to reply to this, but I'll get back to it tomorrow.. I think. lol

 

[OKTexas]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

Your proposal would require a minimum of two constitutional amendments. Repealing the 23rd amendment would solve the problem of a possible tie in the EC. But not the inclusion of the PV, that would require another and I honestly don't see 38 States going for it. BTW how would the inclusion of the PV be weighted against the votes in the EC?

.

 

[badbob85037]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

What you are trying to say is that Candycorn should be able to say who the president is. Some pickled minded Joe type of guy.

 

[candycorn]

BTW how would the inclusion of the PV be weighted against the votes in the EC?

.

It wouldn't be.

You have to get both the majority of the EC votes and the plurality of the popular vote.

If no one candidate gets both, the 12th amendment kicks in.

 

[candycorn]

What you are trying to say is that Candycorn should be able to say who the president is. Some pickled minded Joe type of guy.

Thats about the dumbest thing ever written by anyone...period.

 

[OKTexas]

It wouldn't be.

You have to get both the majority of the EC votes and the plurality of the popular vote.

If no one candidate gets both, the 12th amendment kicks in.

So you're saying the PV can completely negate the EC. And do you understand that under the 12th amendment, each State would only have one vote in the house and senate to chose the President and VP?

.

 

[candycorn]

So you're saying the PV can completely negate the EC.

Not really. You need to win both.

I think that the will of the people should be considered in filling the office. I understand that others don't think that. Again, this is just my idea.

We've had 58 presidential elections. This stipulation would have come into play 4 times I believe. Its a pretty unusual phenomenon when the PV and the EV don't jibe.

And do you understand that under the 12th amendment, each State would only have one vote in the house and senate to chose the President and VP?

.

Yep. They're our representatives and the people had already had their say. It seems appropriate.

 

[OKTexas]

Not really. You need to win both.

I think that the will of the people should be considered in filling the office. I understand that others don't think that. Again, this is just my idea.

We've had 58 presidential elections. This stipulation would have come into play 4 times I believe. Its a pretty unusual phenomenon when the PV and the EV don't jibe.

Yep. They're our representatives and the people had already had their say. It seems appropriate.

The will of the people is considered under the current system, you're just pissed that the more populous States don't carry more weight than they do now, simply because they are blue States. Oh, and it would take a third amendment to give congress the power to dictate to the States when they hold primaries.

.

 

[candycorn]

The will of the people is considered under the current system, you're just pissed that the more populous States don't carry more weight than they do now, simply because they are blue States.

Oh bullshit. Of the states with 10M+ (there are 10 of them), the blob won 7 of them.

Oh, and it would take a third amendment to give congress the power to dictate to the States when they hold primaries.

.

Again it was just my idea to bring some sanity and uniformity to the electoral process. I understand that some are not going to agree.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh bullshit. Of the states with 10M+ (there are 10 of them), the blob won 7 of them.

Again it was just my idea to bring some sanity and uniformity to the electoral process. I understand that some are not going to agree.

Sure, but the blue States have a lot more than 10 million, only 2 of the red States do. But the likelihood of any of the 3 amendment that would be required being ratified, is zero. It only takes 13 States to kill them, and none of the red States would go for a scheme like that. That's all I've got to say about it.

.

 

[kc48]

Roughly 2/3 of the US population lives in 5-10 percent of the geography (see population density map below). If you have a popular vote, then candidates would only have to campaign in select areas. IOW, they'd only have to appeal to city residents.

The founding fathers foresaw the growth and conflict of urban versus rural. This is the basis for the electoral college. It's really quite ingenious.

 

[Correll]

Oh bullshit. Of the states with 10M+ (there are 10 of them), the blob won 7 of them.

Again it was just my idea to bring some sanity and uniformity to the electoral process. I understand that some are not going to agree.

If we had not allowed the nation to be flooded with foreigners, I would be open to discussing it.

As it stands, no more power to voters who are more loyal to mexico than the us.

 

[candycorn]

If we had not allowed the nation to be flooded with foreigners, I would be open to discussing it.

The nation isn't "flooded with foreigners"...you've been brainwashed

As it stands, no more power to voters who are more loyal to mexico than the us.

You're incredibly moronic.

 

[Correll]

The nation isn't "flooded with foreigners"...you've been brainwashed

You're incredibly moronic.

YOu can deny it as much as you want, the huge mobs waving mexican flags marching in supposedly AMERICAN streets says otherwise,

not to mention a marxist getting elected in nyc.


We have made a terrible mistake in opening this country to third world immigration and we will be paying a price for generations.


Part of the bill, is you can kiss any possiblity of reform like you are suggesting, GOOD BYE.

 

[candycorn]

Roughly 2/3 of the US population lives in 5-10 percent of the geography (see population density map below). If you have a popular vote, then candidates would only have to campaign in select areas. IOW, they'd only have to appeal to city residents.

The founding fathers foresaw the growth and conflict of urban versus rural. This is the basis for the electoral college. It's really quite ingenious.

The population should have a direct say in what the outcome of an election is.

I agree the electoral college was genius and I prefer it with all of it's flaws over a straight popular vote.

However there is zero reason why the only office in the nation is decided by 270 anonymous electors vs the will of the plurality of the people.

I know you'll argue otherwise....but there is a reason why the majority/plurality rules in all of the other elections in the entire nation. I'm not even asking for a majority...just a plurality.

 

[candycorn]

YOu can deny it as much as you want, the huge mobs waving mexican flags marching in supposedly AMERICAN streets says otherwise,

not to mention a marxist getting elected in nyc.


We have made a terrible mistake in opening this country to third world immigration and we will be paying a price for generations.


Part of the bill, is you can kiss any possiblity of reform like you are suggesting, GOOD BYE.

Speaking of goodbye... Adios shit brains.

 

[Correll]

Speaking of goodbye... Adios shit brains.

And that's a massive fail for you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except
as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Just do the following:

#1 Congress exercises it's power over federal election requring that Federal Represenative districts be drawn by non-partisian commisions. Eliminate gerrymandering for political power.

#2 States move from "winner-take-all" for Electoral College Electors to a EC Elector by district. The way Maine and Nebraska currently do it. So in other workds, the EC voteds by the states would be 1 EC vote per Congressional District going to the winner of that district plus 2 EC votes representing the Senator awared by candidate receiving the most votes for the entire state.

WW

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The Electoral College elector system needs to be abolished.

538 people voting for 330 million is stupid.