Electoral College

[federalist50]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

This so called debate is a complete waste of time, because it is never going to happen! The Founding Fathers established a democratic republic, one in which they gave more power to the states instead of the three branches of government. As far as our election system goes they were worried about the population centers of New York, Boston and Philadelphia to have undue influence in electing a president. All states have representation, since each state has two senator's and representatives based on population. For instance, California has 55 and New Hampshire has 4. The electoral system is based on a candidate having to have broad support across the country in order to secure enough electoral votes and be elected. This is how we have elected president's since George Washington!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

You have one. The fact that you don't understand and accept how it works is no one else's problem but yours.

I had one, this year, only due to the accident of being in a state that was, in the ridiculous bullshit term the EC system and only that system creates, "in play".-- a concept which, along with the equally bullshitious ones of "red" and "blue" states, would not exist at all under a legitimate and equitable system, i.e. under a system where we could simply be fellow countrymen rather than chopped up into artificial "reds" and "blues".


Again, my friends and relatives in Mississipi, California, Texas and Washington ---- had none. Their states were decided before they woke up that day and there was jack-all they could do about it whether they cared to or not.

That's what I mean by having one's vote thrown away.

Of course, eventually when the counting was in ---- my vote was thrown away too.

You really need to check the meaning of the phrase "have a vote". Clearly, you think it means something other than what it actually does.

 

[FA_Q2]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.
What happens when those few high residency states start having laws passed that force the smaller states to produce materials for them for free, You know, maybe New York wants some free coal, so they and California vote to make it law that for the good of the people of New York, West Virginia will now send 50% of their coal production to New York at no cost. California could get free electric from all of the surrounding states.
I know, how about the big hearted people in California and New York get together and make a humanitarian law up that gives Kansas or maybe Arizona to the illegals where they will be living for free while other small states fix them meals on wheels and send it to them 3 or 4 times a day for free.

You mean like is already happening?

"Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions."
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Those battleground states are doing exactly what you are afraid of.

what do you mean "what Im afraid of" that winner takes all shit pisses me off, Maryland is one of those F-ed up states, my vote never counts, because of the welfare scum in Baltimore, Prince Georges County and Montgomery county, the rest of the states votes are pretty much thrown out. Mine included. My vote has not counted since the state started this winner takes all crap.
I would like to see them change it today, then even if my candidate (the American) loses, I can at least know that it wasnt because votes are being thrown out because of some state policy.

It IS a state policy. Your state has the ability to use a different method of apportionment if it wants. Feel free to lobby for it, but don't expect a huge mass of leftists to adopt a system that weakens their stranglehold on the power.

They do not have to. The way the current plan to make this a possibility works does not involve proportionately assigning EV votes. It works by assigning them all to the winner of the popular vote and only kicks in when there are enough states to meet the 270 EV threshold.

They are 60% of the way there already. Do I think that they are going to get the last 40% anytime soon? No I do not but it is a distinct possibility and it is not far fetched to think that they may succeed in the near future.

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

This so called debate is a complete waste of time, because it is never going to happen! The Founding Fathers established a democratic republic, one in which they gave more power to the states instead of the three branches of government. As far as our election system goes they were worried about the population centers of New York, Boston and Philadelphia to have undue influence in electing a president. All states have representation, since each state has two senator's and representatives based on population. For instance, California has 55 and New Hampshire has 4. The electoral system is based on a candidate having to have broad support across the country in order to secure enough electoral votes and be elected. This is how we have elected president's since George Washington!

Uh --------- nnnnno it isn't. Not at all.

Number one when the country was created most people lived in rural areas, especially farms --- not in the cities. Nor were they concerned about "New York Boston and Philadelphia". That's a latter-day myth that can be neither justified nor explained. Number two, part of what they were going for was to give more power to the slaveholding South, allowing them to count said slaves as three-fifths of a person for population counting, while of course granting them zero-fifths of a vote, resulting in nine of the first ten Presidential administrations deriving from exactly that element. And number three the inane "winner take all" shitstem wasn't used at all until 1800 and didn't predominate until 1824. Prior to that it was common for state legislatures to simply appoint electors. The Constitution after all doesn't require an Election Day at all.

It was only because Virginia went with the WTA system to elect Jefferson, and then Massachusetts countered by doing the same thing to elect Quincy Adams, that this exclusionary practice got entrenched.

​

How We Got Into This Hole

 

[Pogo]

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

You have one. The fact that you don't understand and accept how it works is no one else's problem but yours.

I had one, this year, only due to the accident of being in a state that was, in the ridiculous bullshit term the EC system and only that system creates, "in play".-- a concept which, along with the equally bullshitious ones of "red" and "blue" states, would not exist at all under a legitimate and equitable system, i.e. under a system where we could simply be fellow countrymen rather than chopped up into artificial "reds" and "blues".


Again, my friends and relatives in Mississipi, California, Texas and Washington ---- had none. Their states were decided before they woke up that day and there was jack-all they could do about it whether they cared to or not.

That's what I mean by having one's vote thrown away.

Of course, eventually when the counting was in ---- my vote was thrown away too.

You really need to check the meaning of the phrase "have a vote". Clearly, you think it means something other than what it actually does.

Aye, clearly I do. When I use the phrase I mean "effectively".

If you have a vote in name only --- one that has no effect due to a bizarre electoral Predestination --- then you have in effect, no vote.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I love it. The Trumpkins have become Constitutional "scholars" on this topic. I wonder how many of them have read, let alone written, a legal brief that went to the SCOTUS?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

You have one. The fact that you don't understand and accept how it works is no one else's problem but yours.

I had one, this year, only due to the accident of being in a state that was, in the ridiculous bullshit term the EC system and only that system creates, "in play".-- a concept which, along with the equally bullshitious ones of "red" and "blue" states, would not exist at all under a legitimate and equitable system, i.e. under a system where we could simply be fellow countrymen rather than chopped up into artificial "reds" and "blues".


Again, my friends and relatives in Mississipi, California, Texas and Washington ---- had none. Their states were decided before they woke up that day and there was jack-all they could do about it whether they cared to or not.

That's what I mean by having one's vote thrown away.

Of course, eventually when the counting was in ---- my vote was thrown away too.

You really need to check the meaning of the phrase "have a vote". Clearly, you think it means something other than what it actually does.

Aye, clearly I do. When I use the phrase I mean "effectively".

If you have a vote in name only --- one that has no effect due to a bizarre electoral Predestination --- then you have in effect, no vote.

And now you're having problems understanding the concept of "effective votes". I'm guessing your school didn't do a very good job of covering basic American civics, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I love it. The Trumpkins have become Constitutional "scholars" on this topic. I wonder how many of them have read, let alone written, a legal brief that went to the SCOTUS?

Do you really believe that's required in order to comprehend laws which are written in plain English and intended for everyday people to live by? Exactly what do you find so confusing about the layout of the Electoral College and its purpose that you require a lawyer to explain it to you?

 

[Pogo]

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

You have one. The fact that you don't understand and accept how it works is no one else's problem but yours.

I had one, this year, only due to the accident of being in a state that was, in the ridiculous bullshit term the EC system and only that system creates, "in play".-- a concept which, along with the equally bullshitious ones of "red" and "blue" states, would not exist at all under a legitimate and equitable system, i.e. under a system where we could simply be fellow countrymen rather than chopped up into artificial "reds" and "blues".


Again, my friends and relatives in Mississipi, California, Texas and Washington ---- had none. Their states were decided before they woke up that day and there was jack-all they could do about it whether they cared to or not.

That's what I mean by having one's vote thrown away.

Of course, eventually when the counting was in ---- my vote was thrown away too.

You really need to check the meaning of the phrase "have a vote". Clearly, you think it means something other than what it actually does.

Aye, clearly I do. When I use the phrase I mean "effectively".

If you have a vote in name only --- one that has no effect due to a bizarre electoral Predestination --- then you have in effect, no vote.

And now you're having problems understanding the concept of "effective votes". I'm guessing your school didn't do a very good job of covering basic American civics, huh?

My aren't we confrontational.

My school didn't do squat, no. I had to research all this shit myself. Which is fine, I'm a far more trustworthy source. And no I'm having no issues comprehending my own term. That'd be kinda hard to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have one. The fact that you don't understand and accept how it works is no one else's problem but yours.

I had one, this year, only due to the accident of being in a state that was, in the ridiculous bullshit term the EC system and only that system creates, "in play".-- a concept which, along with the equally bullshitious ones of "red" and "blue" states, would not exist at all under a legitimate and equitable system, i.e. under a system where we could simply be fellow countrymen rather than chopped up into artificial "reds" and "blues".


Again, my friends and relatives in Mississipi, California, Texas and Washington ---- had none. Their states were decided before they woke up that day and there was jack-all they could do about it whether they cared to or not.

That's what I mean by having one's vote thrown away.

Of course, eventually when the counting was in ---- my vote was thrown away too.

You really need to check the meaning of the phrase "have a vote". Clearly, you think it means something other than what it actually does.

Aye, clearly I do. When I use the phrase I mean "effectively".

If you have a vote in name only --- one that has no effect due to a bizarre electoral Predestination --- then you have in effect, no vote.

And now you're having problems understanding the concept of "effective votes". I'm guessing your school didn't do a very good job of covering basic American civics, huh?

My aren't we confrontational.

My school didn't do squat, no. I had to research all this shit myself. Which is fine, I'm a far more trustworthy source. And no I'm having no issues comprehending my own term. That'd be kinda hard to do.

Confrontational? Sorry, have you not seen my posts before?

And no, judging from your posts, you did a lousy job of educating yourself. You should go back and slap your teachers for not preventing this atrocity.

I never said you were having trouble comprehending yourself. I said you're having trouble comprehending what the terms you're misusing ACTUALLY mean.

You have a vote, and it does have an effect. It may not be the vote you want or the effect you want, but that's no one's problem but yours. It certainly does not mean that your vote was "thrown away" or "in name only".

You do not have a direct vote in a national popular election. You were never intended to have one. You might WANT one, but our system of government is not designed to please just you. What you DO have is a vote for the electors who represent your state in electing the President. This is akin to you not having a direct vote on legislation before Congress, but rather having a vote in the election of the people who represent your state in Congress. Unless you massively screwed up your ballot - which I'm certainly not discounting as a possibility at this point - your vote was counted and did have an effect on the election it actually pertained to, that of the slate of electors for your state. Did it singlehandedly decide the outcome, either of that election or the subsequent one for President? No. That may have been the effect you WANTED it to have, but you're not the only person in your state or in the country. Everyone else gets a vote too, which means we get the ability to mitigate your vote.

Sorry, but one guy with one vote is never going to be anything but a drop in a pond in a nation of 300 million + people, or even a state of however-many your state's population is. That's really on you for choosing to live in a state/nation with so many other people. It does not mean that your vote was "thrown out" or "meaningless". It means it was weighed in the balance with all the other votes.

Now please speak to your school about sending me a paycheck for doing the job they neglected way back when.

 

[Pogo]

I had one, this year, only due to the accident of being in a state that was, in the ridiculous bullshit term the EC system and only that system creates, "in play".-- a concept which, along with the equally bullshitious ones of "red" and "blue" states, would not exist at all under a legitimate and equitable system, i.e. under a system where we could simply be fellow countrymen rather than chopped up into artificial "reds" and "blues".


Again, my friends and relatives in Mississipi, California, Texas and Washington ---- had none. Their states were decided before they woke up that day and there was jack-all they could do about it whether they cared to or not.

That's what I mean by having one's vote thrown away.

Of course, eventually when the counting was in ---- my vote was thrown away too.

You really need to check the meaning of the phrase "have a vote". Clearly, you think it means something other than what it actually does.

Aye, clearly I do. When I use the phrase I mean "effectively".

If you have a vote in name only --- one that has no effect due to a bizarre electoral Predestination --- then you have in effect, no vote.

And now you're having problems understanding the concept of "effective votes". I'm guessing your school didn't do a very good job of covering basic American civics, huh?

My aren't we confrontational.

My school didn't do squat, no. I had to research all this shit myself. Which is fine, I'm a far more trustworthy source. And no I'm having no issues comprehending my own term. That'd be kinda hard to do.

Confrontational? Sorry, have you not seen my posts before?

And no, judging from your posts, you did a lousy job of educating yourself. You should go back and slap your teachers for not preventing this atrocity.

I never said you were having trouble comprehending yourself. I said you're having trouble comprehending what the terms you're misusing ACTUALLY mean.

You have a vote, and it does have an effect. It may not be the vote you want or the effect you want, but that's no one's problem but yours. It certainly does not mean that your vote was "thrown away" or "in name only".

You do not have a direct vote in a national popular election. You were never intended to have one. You might WANT one, but our system of government is not designed to please just you. What you DO have is a vote for the electors who represent your state in electing the President. This is akin to you not having a direct vote on legislation before Congress, but rather having a vote in the election of the people who represent your state in Congress. Unless you massively screwed up your ballot - which I'm certainly not discounting as a possibility at this point - your vote was counted and did have an effect on the election it actually pertained to, that of the slate of electors for your state. Did it singlehandedly decide the outcome, either of that election or the subsequent one for President? No. That may have been the effect you WANTED it to have, but you're not the only person in your state or in the country. Everyone else gets a vote too, which means we get the ability to mitigate your vote.

Sorry, but one guy with one vote is never going to be anything but a drop in a pond in a nation of 300 million + people, or even a state of however-many your state's population is. That's really on you for choosing to live in a state/nation with so many other people. It does not mean that your vote was "thrown out" or "meaningless". It means it was weighed in the balance with all the other votes.

Now please speak to your school about sending me a paycheck for doing the job they neglected way back when.

Oh yes I've seen your posts before obviously, and the confrontational bit is a spirit I actually admire. But here you're so desperately reaching for that confrontation that it obscures the reality that you don't have a point, because you have no ground to stand on taking issue with my point --- as you just demonstrated.

Again, and this is the simplest way I can put it --- even though we're told we "have a vote" and incited to go do it, when Election Day dawned nobody in California or Texas or West Virginia or Massachusetts had any incentive to go do it. Their state was already decided and nothing they did, either in assent or dissent, was going to make a damn bit of difference. They would (and did) reach exactly the same conclusion by staying home and not voting at all, which is directly why our turnout is abysmal ---- 55% in this case and I'm not even making that up.

An that's because anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how their vote is shunted into a garbage disposal can SEE that there's no point.

Again, I was sitting in a state that wasn't clearly leaning so my vote actually meant something---- for one day, after which it too was tossed in the same scrap heap. Which recalls yet another flaw of the EC system as we have it, that being that it makes us dependent on polls simply to find out whether it's even worth leaving the house on Election Day. That's bullshit too.

That's what 'having no vote' means, that's what it has always meant and there's no defensible argument against it. I know it gives you epilepticish fits to agree with me but there it is. You're trying too hard just for the sake of arguing.