Changing US state boundaries to fix Electoral College

[RandomPoster]

We should re-draw state boundaries so that the states would have even populations. Part of California would become Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, etc.. Part of Texas would become Arizona, Nevada etc..

 

[BULLDOG]

Just do away with it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just do away with it.

The problem with doing away with the Electoral College is that it lets a handful of metro areas decide every national election.

Trump had 62.9 million votes and Hillary had 65.8 million votes. If you take the top 7 most populous metro areas (not cities but metro areas), you have 69.1 million people. I understand that is not registered voters, but it still makes the point.

 

[WinterBorn]

We should re-draw state boundaries so that the states would have even populations. Part of California would become Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, etc.. Part of Texas would become Arizona, Nevada etc..

Do we redraw the state boundaries every time we have a census?

What do we do with Hawaii?

 

[RandomPoster]

If you make Los Angeles part of Hawaii, Anaheim part of Alaska, San Diego part of New Hampshire, etc., it would solve the problem. They would have to be re-drawn every election. Maybe they would only count as part of that state for the election.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just do away with it.

The problem with doing away with the Electoral College is that it lets a handful of metro areas decide every national election.

Trump had 62.9 million votes and Hillary had 65.8 million votes. If you take the top 7 most populous metro areas (not cities but metro areas), you have 69.1 million people. I understand that is not registered voters, but it still makes the point.

Better than electing a president who didn't win the popular vote.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you make Los Angeles part of Hawaii, Anaheim part of Alaska, San Diego part of New Hampshire, etc., it would solve the problem. They would have to be re-drawn every election. Maybe they would only count as part of that state for the election.

And the people living in the areas that you decide should be in another state are subject to different state laws every 4 years? That is nuts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just do away with it.

The problem with doing away with the Electoral College is that it lets a handful of metro areas decide every national election.

Trump had 62.9 million votes and Hillary had 65.8 million votes. If you take the top 7 most populous metro areas (not cities but metro areas), you have 69.1 million people. I understand that is not registered voters, but it still makes the point.

Better than electing a president who didn't win the popular vote.

He is the 5th president to be elected without winning the popular vote. The electoral college makes sure everyone is represented, not just major population centers.

But if we elect based solely on popular vote, that should be decided before the election.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just do away with it.

The problem with doing away with the Electoral College is that it lets a handful of metro areas decide every national election.

Trump had 62.9 million votes and Hillary had 65.8 million votes. If you take the top 7 most populous metro areas (not cities but metro areas), you have 69.1 million people. I understand that is not registered voters, but it still makes the point.

What? No it would not.

I think you believe it does because today Presidential elections are won by state. What makes that be so is the electoral college. Do away with the electoral college and the "by state" thing goes with it. With no electoral college there are no state electors, no electoral votes; there are only voters, people like you and me.

With the absence of the "by state" aspect, that lots of people live in metro areas becomes irrelevant and candidates would have to campaign to win a majority of the votes across all the people in the country. In other words, a NYC voter's vote counts for neither more nor less than does a Jackson Hole, WY voter's vote. Candidates would have to campaign in all states and at least attempt to appeal to all people, not just people in "key battleground" states, which is what they do now.

Get rid of the EC and winning is merely a matter of who gets the most votes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just do away with it.

^This^

 

[WinterBorn]

Just do away with it.

The problem with doing away with the Electoral College is that it lets a handful of metro areas decide every national election.

Trump had 62.9 million votes and Hillary had 65.8 million votes. If you take the top 7 most populous metro areas (not cities but metro areas), you have 69.1 million people. I understand that is not registered voters, but it still makes the point.

What? No it would not.

I think you believe it does because today Presidential elections are won by state. What makes that be so is the electoral college. Do away with the electoral college and the "by state" thing goes with it. With no electoral college there are no state electors, no electoral votes; there are only voters, people like you and me.

With the absence of the "by state" aspect, that lots of people live in metro areas becomes irrelevant and candidates would have to campaign to win a majority of the votes across all the people in the country. In other words, a NYC voter's vote counts for neither more nor less than does a Jackson Hole, WY voter's vote. Candidates would have to campaign in all states and at least attempt to appeal to all people, not just people in "key battleground" states, which is what they do now.

Get rid of the EC and winning is merely a matter of who gets the most votes.

My reply had nothing to do with states. It is populations of major metro areas. Several of which cross state lines.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We should re-draw state boundaries so that the states would have even populations. Part of California would become Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, etc.. Part of Texas would become Arizona, Nevada etc..

This is a complex solution to a problem that is very simply solved by dispensing with the electoral college, thus the notion of state electors.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just do away with it.

^This^

If we are going to do away with the electoral college, the main thing is to do away with it before any elections. None of this "But Hillary had more votes!" nonsense.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just do away with it.

The problem with doing away with the Electoral College is that it lets a handful of metro areas decide every national election.

Trump had 62.9 million votes and Hillary had 65.8 million votes. If you take the top 7 most populous metro areas (not cities but metro areas), you have 69.1 million people. I understand that is not registered voters, but it still makes the point.

What? No it would not.

I think you believe it does because today Presidential elections are won by state. What makes that be so is the electoral college. Do away with the electoral college and the "by state" thing goes with it. With no electoral college there are no state electors, no electoral votes; there are only voters, people like you and me.

With the absence of the "by state" aspect, that lots of people live in metro areas becomes irrelevant and candidates would have to campaign to win a majority of the votes across all the people in the country. In other words, a NYC voter's vote counts for neither more nor less than does a Jackson Hole, WY voter's vote. Candidates would have to campaign in all states and at least attempt to appeal to all people, not just people in "key battleground" states, which is what they do now.

Get rid of the EC and winning is merely a matter of who gets the most votes.

My reply had nothing to do with states. It is populations of major metro areas. Several of which cross state lines.

The point is that without an electoral college, it doesn't matter. There are no electors and with no electors who lives where does not matter. All that matters is who votes and for whom they vote.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just do away with it.

^This^

If we are going to do away with the electoral college, the main thing is to do away with it before any elections. None of this "But Hillary had more votes!" nonsense.

What the f*ck's Hillary got to do with it? I didn't mention that woman. I don't care about her or how many votes she or any past candidate for POTUS obtained. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with any of those people, including HIllary.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just do away with it.

^This^

If we are going to do away with the electoral college, the main thing is to do away with it before any elections. None of this "But Hillary had more votes!" nonsense.

the main thing is to do away with it before any elections.

What? I have no idea what to make of that exhortation. We've been having elections since the 1700s. Scrapping the EC before there are any elections would have had to have happened prior to George Washington's election.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just do away with it.

^This^

If we are going to do away with the electoral college, the main thing is to do away with it before any elections. None of this "But Hillary had more votes!" nonsense.

What the f*ck's Hillary got to do with it? I didn't mention that woman. I don't care about her or how many votes she or any past candidate for POTUS obtained. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with any of those people, including HIllary.

Just looking at the reason many people want the change.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just do away with it.

^This^

If we are going to do away with the electoral college, the main thing is to do away with it before any elections. None of this "But Hillary had more votes!" nonsense.

the main thing is to do away with it before any elections.

What? I have no idea what to make of that exhortation. We've been having elections since the 1700s. Scrapping the EC before there are any elections would have had to have happened prior to George Washington's election.

Don't be daft. I meant before the start of any election cycle on a national scale.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just do away with it.

^This^

If we are going to do away with the electoral college, the main thing is to do away with it before any elections. None of this "But Hillary had more votes!" nonsense.

What the f*ck's Hillary got to do with it? I didn't mention that woman. I don't care about her or how many votes she or any past candidate for POTUS obtained. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with any of those people, including HIllary.

Just looking at the reason many people want the change.

Okay, fine. I would as you to keep in mind that for you're having this discussion with only me.

 

[Unkotare]

We should re-draw state boundaries so that the states would have even populations. Part of California would become Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, etc.. Part of Texas would become Arizona, Nevada etc..

...this is your brain on drugs...