Electoral Voting system: Is this short list of "talking points" accurate enough

[emilynghiem]

Two friends asked me to summarize my points on the Electoral Voting system.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.

Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.

Here goes:

A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:

If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.

2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.

3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.

4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.

[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]

B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.

Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.

From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.

I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.

Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.

Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.

 

[Defiant1]

What are electoral reps?

 

[emilynghiem]

What are electoral reps?

Dear Defiant1
I propose to EXPAND the role of "Electors" who just cast votes in December
and add the option for districts to elect "Electoral Reps" (proportionally)
who can meet year round to consult on issues using representation by party.

 

[rightwinger]

Two friends asked me to summarize my points on the Electoral Voting system.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.

Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.

Here goes:

A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:

If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.

2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.

3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.

4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.

[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]

B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.

Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.

From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.

I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.

Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.

Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.

You left off the disparity of a voter in Wyoming having four times the electoral vote power as a voter in California

 

[Pogo]

OK I'll take on the first half (for now)....

1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.

This conclusion absolutely does not follow. Political attention is ALREADY focused on high population density areas, in that it involves mass media, which is far more influential than public physical appearances. Besides which, a candy is not guaranteed that vote just because he/she shows up in Wazoo City.

As it is currently, candies ALREADY focus their attention on so-called "battleground" states, a completely specious bullshit term that would not even exist without the WTA system, and as a result ignore the "locked" states. Nobody bothers to campaign in Rhode Island or in Idaho, because everybody knows the former is going "blue" and the latter "red" so there's no point in either of them going there, just as there's no point in any of those states' voters going to vote at all. They're already predecided and there's nothing a Rhode Islander or an Idahoan can do about that.

But back to the original and larger point, masses of votes are garnered by media advertising, not by anyone going anywhere. Think about how many major candidates you've voted for (or against) that you've actually met, versus how many you've seen on TV or read about in print. I can think of literally ONE, and that's only because it was primary season and I happened to live in a place with an early and prominent primary, which most people do not. And I was already a supporter before I went there, which is why I went there. So this line of reasoning is just a non-starter.

3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.

Third parties are ALREADY wiped out by a locked Duopoly system which, with its WTA aspect, ensures that no third party may ever make inroads, ever. That is ALREADY impossible. That horse left the barn long ago. And further, the two party (note singular) have colluded to control the POTUS debates (which used to be run by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters), which now means that nothing goes down in a debate without the assent of that colluding Duopoly. That means not only what questions are off limits but what parties are off limits too.

Then there's the knee-jerk collusion of the aforementioned mass media, which will pour its attention on the most attention-getting candies, which means the Duopoly candies by default, because that's what draws them ratings. It's a system that depends on the same-old-thing mentality, on both ends.

The fact is, when we do see a visible Third Party run, either by a known entity because they're a former Duopolist, or by somebody wealthy enough to buy their own buzz, their strategy is not to win outright, because they know that's impossible --- their strategy is to siphon off enough votes from the Duopoly so as to deny either one of them a majority, which then tosses the whole election into the House of Reps, effectively nullifying what passes for an election altogether.

No Third Party will ever take the reins as long as the Duopoly has that system rigged. That's exactly why, for instance, Bernie Sanders had to run as a Democrat.

4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.

That's ALREADY the case. Every voter in that aforementioned Idaho who voted for Clinton, or in Rhode Island who voted for Rump --- or for anybody else --- had their vote immediately tossed into the garbage disposal and ground to a fine mush, laughing all the way. That's a major reason so many of us don't vote at all, because what the hell is the point if your vote is going to be set ablaze? And then there are cases like my state ---- as well as Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Arizona, Utah among others in the last round ---- in which MOST OF THE STATE'S POPULATION had their vote tossed in the trash, as nobody won a majority at all, and yet each of those states went to Congress and dumped 100% of their EVs to a single candidate, who could not break 50%. In 1992, outside of his own state of Arkansas and the District of Colombia, the winning candidate Bill Clinton could not win the popular vote in ANY state, while George H.W. Bush was the popular choice of no states at all. Two candidates, even with the Duopoly behind them, won a combined total of one state.

So it's a wee bit late to be just now observing that people's votes are left without representation. That's been going on nearly two centuries now. And it was never the intention of the Electoral College system.

 

[Oddball]

"We lost, so change the rules"

 

[Defiant1]

What are electoral reps?

Dear Defiant1
I propose to EXPAND the role of "Electors" who just cast votes in December
and add the option for districts to elect "Electoral Reps" (proportionally)
who can meet year round to consult on issues using representation by party.

There are no pool of electors.
The electors don't represent parties, they proposed electors are chosen by the candidate.
They aren't known until 2 months before the election.
They don't become electors unless their candidate wins the state. Except for Maine and Nebraska.
Independent and minor party candidates chose a list of electors.

 

[Pogo]

What are electoral reps?

Dear Defiant1
I propose to EXPAND the role of "Electors" who just cast votes in December
and add the option for districts to elect "Electoral Reps" (proportionally)
who can meet year round to consult on issues using representation by party.

I really don't see the point of this, and I've already noted your obsession with "parties".

The fact is, in a representative government, the job of those reps is to represent CONSTITUENTS, not "parties". I wouldn't mind seeing parties shoved down the garbage disposal, set on "puree" and never seen again. That's what leads to tribalism and gridlock and career politicking.

 

[emilynghiem]

What are electoral reps?

Dear Defiant1
I propose to EXPAND the role of "Electors" who just cast votes in December
and add the option for districts to elect "Electoral Reps" (proportionally)
who can meet year round to consult on issues using representation by party.

There are no pool of electors.
The electors don't represent parties, they proposed electors are chosen by the candidate.
They aren't known until 2 months before the election.
They don't become electors unless their candidate wins the state. Except for Maine and Nebraska.
Independent and minor party candidates chose a list of electors.

I'm saying to change it and EXPAND it to
proportional representation by party.
If we are going to reform it to satisfy the complaints,
we could do even MORE with the Electoral College.

Since identity and beliefs by Party already influence elections,
why not set up an ADVISORY type body using representation by party.
This would not be binding except where people AGREE to policies
and terms coming out of it that the OFFICIAL govt officials and offices
can use to resolve policy disputes so it influences OFFICIAL policies and laws.

Why allow partisan politics already to skew the voting and representation
(including what Pogo was stating and adding).
Why not address this and allow conflict resolution and redressing of
grievances and objections so parties don't dictate votes biased all one way or another.
Why not solve the actual problems so it never becomes a battle between two parties
to dominate over the other.

Defiant1 By the time we resolve the
issue of Electoral College Votes and Partisan biases,
we could have representation for all parties by reforming
the structure and using it more cost effectively for multiple functions.

 

[rightwinger]

"We lost, so change the rules"

Long overdue

 

[emilynghiem]

Two friends asked me to summarize my points on the Electoral Voting system.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.

Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.

Here goes:

A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:

If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.

2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.

3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.

4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.

[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]

B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.

Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.

From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.

I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.

Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.

Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.

You left off the disparity of a voter in Wyoming having four times the electoral vote power as a voter in California

Do you agree that by opening up the Electoral
system to allow proportional representation by party
would make all voting and input proportional and would
ensure that people's beliefs stay within their own
jurisdiction so no group forces its beliefs by majority
outside the membership that agrees to those beliefs.

rightwinger

How else would you propose to prevent EITHER extreme of oppression or disparity
either
I. voters in smaller states outweighing voters in larger states
II. voters in high density population areas having more leverage
than voters in low density population areas

If votes are always apportioned so those voters have representation regardless,
that would help, for one.
Then to ADD to that, since some parties are smaller than others, I would use
conflict resolution and consensus process to accommodate all people of
all beliefs equally regardless what size groups they affiliate or represent themselves through.

 

[Defiant1]

Two friends asked me to summarize my points on the Electoral Voting system.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.

Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.

Here goes:

A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:

If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.

2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.

3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.

4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.

[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]

B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.

Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.

From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.

I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.

Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.

Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.

You left off the disparity of a voter in Wyoming having four times the electoral vote power as a voter in California

Do you agree that by opening up the Electoral
system to allow proportional representation by party
would make all voting and input proportional and would
ensure that people's beliefs stay within their own
jurisdiction so no group forces its beliefs by majority
outside the membership that agrees to those beliefs.

rightwinger

How else would you propose to prevent EITHER extreme of oppression or disparity
either
I. voters in smaller states outweighing voters in larger states
II. voters in high density population areas having more leverage
than voters in low density population areas

If votes are always apportioned so those voters have representation regardless,
that would help, for one.
Then to ADD to that, since some parties are smaller than others, I would use
conflict resolution and consensus process to accommodate all people of
all beliefs equally regardless what size groups they affiliate or represent themselves through.

Get rid of primary elections.
Only have general elections.
Give parties the power of their organizations.
Parties decide who their candidates are for all positions.
Independent candidates declare themselves.
Get rid of party affiliation for voter registration.
If you want to register with a party you apply with the party.

 

[emilynghiem]

What are electoral reps?

Dear Defiant1
I propose to EXPAND the role of "Electors" who just cast votes in December
and add the option for districts to elect "Electoral Reps" (proportionally)
who can meet year round to consult on issues using representation by party.

I really don't see the point of this, and I've already noted your obsession with "parties".

The fact is, in a representative government, the job of those reps is to represent CONSTITUENTS, not "parties". I wouldn't mind seeing parties shoved down the garbage disposal, set on "puree" and never seen again. That's what leads to tribalism and gridlock and career politicking.

Dear Pogo
1. I'm not trying to "endorse" obsessions with parties
but just RECOGNIZING people's beliefs are ENGRAINED.

These political beliefs ARE THEIR REALITIES
that they NEED to have respected and NOT infringed on or excluded by Govt.

For example, I can be equally comfortable working with BOTH prochoice
and prolife people, even if they have obsessions and can't interact with each other AT ALL.

That doesn't affect ME, and my views and ability to respect and work with BOTH.

But that open inclusive approach I use DOESN'T WORK FOR THEM.

Do you understand Pogo?
This is REALITY for them. They cannot tolerate the other side's beliefs.
I'm just ACCEPTING this fact,
and trying to set up a system that ACCOMMODATES those beliefs that are out there.

2. Secondly, if we are going to get the TERMS of health care and social benefits OUT OF GOVT,
one of the "shortcuts" is to have members of parties organize their own terms of services and benefits
THROUGH THEIR OWN PARTY.

Why not give them that choice to make it simpler?
Then such groups only have to democratically agree among 500-1500
instead of trying to get "the entire nation" to agree to a system of terms and conditions on benefits.

I'm just using this as a SHORTCUT to organizing Group Representation.
Party members already have their platforms established
and they KNOW where they have disputes.

So why reinvent the wheel. Why not start with that BLUEPRINT
and allow groups to democratically manage their own benefits?
If they disagree, they work it out WITHIN THEIR GROUP
and it doesn't have to hold up other groups who are
responsible for their own membership terms.

Why not explore that as an option?
Isn't that BETTER than whole parties imposing their beliefs on others?
And just give them ability to decide their own terms for their own members?

3. Lastly it will help organize negotiations better if we work out
solutions between the sides opposed, so ALL objections can be addressed.

If people with the SAME issues and objections work this out collectively,
those solutions that work can be offered to "everyone else with that same belief,
objection or concern." By orchestrating the negotiations by party, each party
would have a vested interest in making sure all their members get their objections
and conflicts resolved. So this would help with the grievance and petitioning process
to group it by party with members sharing common beliefs and positions.

 

[jwoodie]

Two friends asked me to summarize my points on the Electoral Voting system.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.

Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.

Here goes:

A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:

If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.

2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.

3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.

4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.

[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]

B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.

Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.

From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.

I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.

Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.

Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.

Interesting points, but I think you are relitigating an issue that was settled a long time ago. The Constitution specifies that the individual states elect the President, not the population as a whole.

Modernly, a major benefit of this arrangement is that it provides firewalls between the states to limit the effects of vote fraud.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Two friends asked me to summarize my points on the Electoral Voting system.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.

Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.

Here goes:

A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:

If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.

2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.

3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.

4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.

[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]

B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.

Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.

From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.

I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.

Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.

Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.

You left off the disparity of a voter in Wyoming having four times the electoral vote power as a voter in California

Liar, each state gets two Senator's Automatically



.