PA Electoral College Plan

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,088
Reaction score
15,785
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I think they should split electoral votes...

well, i actually don't think there should be an electoral college anymore. it was a way for small states to vote land, because they lacked people. and i've never understood why someone in north dakota's vote should be worth more than mine.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,674
Reaction score
16,093
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
If we moved to a popular vote system, then the elections would be dominated by urban areas and nobody would pay attention to rural Americans. Clearly, rural Americans have much different concerns than us urbanites and this helps equal out the influence somewhat. Whether or not this is fair is a matter of opinion. In the history of the EC, only four presidents have lost the popular vote and still won, so it's not something that happens very often.

Regarding Pennsylvania, it's a bad idea, in my opinion. They will render themselves irrelevant in future presidential elections if they pass a plan to split their votes. The Republicans are being self-serving with this proposal because PA in recent history has gone Democratic in the presidential elections.
 

PeteEU

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
329
Reaction score
54
Points
78
Location
Malaga region, Spain
I think they should split electoral votes...

well, i actually don't think there should be an electoral college anymore. it was a way for small states to vote land, because they lacked people. and i've never understood why someone in north dakota's vote should be worth more than mine.
Because chances are that the person in North Dakota have the correct political views.. you know, the planet is flat and Jesus rode on dinos type person... :eusa_whistle:
 
OP
JoeB131

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,080
Reaction score
13,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
My criticism of the electoral college is this -

1) It allows guys who LOSE the popular vote to win the election. This has happened 4 times- 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. That flies in the face of the notion of one person, one vote.

2) States like mine which are considered "safe" are ignored. I live in IL. No matter how bad things get for Obama, he's going to carry this state. Therefore, it will be more along the lines of "What election?" next year, as we will not see much of Obama or his GOP opponent.

3) Conversely, Swing States get inordinate attention.

4) It strangles the emergence of third parties. Our history is littled with failed third parties that lasted about one election cycle, and then whithered and died. The Reform Party was the last major one. Everyone complains about how the fringes and activists control the two main parties, but the best remedy for that is a third party, which the electoral college makes impossible.

The best case scenario for a third party is to toss an election into Congress, where the two parties will still get one of their own.
 
OP
JoeB131

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,080
Reaction score
13,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
If we moved to a popular vote system, then the elections would be dominated by urban areas and nobody would pay attention to rural Americans. Clearly, rural Americans have much different concerns than us urbanites and this helps equal out the influence somewhat. Whether or not this is fair is a matter of opinion. In the history of the EC, only four presidents have lost the popular vote and still won, so it's not something that happens very often.
.
You mean the four times out of 56 elections. That's an 8% fail rate. Would you want to fly on a plane that crashed 8% of the time?

In the history of the EC, the four times the EC overrode the popular will, we've had pretty disasterous presidencies. Hayes sold out everything that was won in the Civil War, and we got 100 years of Jim Crow and segergation. Bush-43. Well, need I say more. I'm a Republican, and I think that guy was a disaster. (Thankfully for the GOP, Obama has been a bigger disaster, so we didn't go the way of the Whigs.)

Yes, the elections will be dominated by the Urban areas. THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE!
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,088
Reaction score
15,785
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
My criticism of the electoral college is this -

1) It allows guys who LOSE the popular vote to win the election. This has happened 4 times- 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. That flies in the face of the notion of one person, one vote.

2) States like mine which are considered "safe" are ignored. I live in IL. No matter how bad things get for Obama, he's going to carry this state. Therefore, it will be more along the lines of "What election?" next year, as we will not see much of Obama or his GOP opponent.

3) Conversely, Swing States get inordinate attention.

4) It strangles the emergence of third parties. Our history is littled with failed third parties that lasted about one election cycle, and then whithered and died. The Reform Party was the last major one. Everyone complains about how the fringes and activists control the two main parties, but the best remedy for that is a third party, which the electoral college makes impossible.

The best case scenario for a third party is to toss an election into Congress, where the two parties will still get one of their own.
i actually agree with you on all accounts. the EC served a purpose when the founders, patrician to the core, wanted to shield the country from the hoi polloi. that's why delegats can vote the way they want to. would they? i don't know. but it has no place in a modern government, imo.
 

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
If we moved to a popular vote system, then the elections would be dominated by urban areas and nobody would pay attention to rural Americans.
What attention are they being paid now and how is the Electoral College responsible for it?
 

zzzz

Just a regular American
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
530
Points
98
Location
Yountsville
Maybe we should just do away with popular presidential elections and have our state representatives nominate and elect the President. The Senate used to be a body that was elected that way until populist voting replaced it. Since the people cannot get good quality people elected as President maybe this would allow quality people to run.
 

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
Maybe we should just do away with popular presidential elections and have our state representatives nominate and elect the President. The Senate used to be a body that was elected that way until populist voting replaced it. Since the people cannot get good quality people elected as President maybe this would allow quality people to run.
That's not far from what the Electoral College was designed to be: not some bizarre system for aggregating state-level popular votes (as it is today) but a method for choosing a small group of men "most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [i.e. the decision-making process necessary for selecting a President]." Choose a group of men you trust, then let them think on it real hard and select a new leader.

It wasn't about making sure the voice of this or that constituency or geographic region was amplified, it was about turning over decision-making authority to a small band of well-bred oracles. The fact that the Electoral College still exists today is just testament to the fact that we've held onto the institution while completely abandoning (and, in some ways, directly reversing) its original purpose.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,458
Points
2,165
I am a solid EC boy from the get go, believe me. Space and place are represented by geography and demography through the EC. Don't change it.
 

Cuyo

Training a Guineapig army
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
992
Points
98
Location
Denver, PA
If we moved to a popular vote system, then the elections would be dominated by urban areas and nobody would pay attention to rural Americans. Clearly, rural Americans have much different concerns than us urbanites and this helps equal out the influence somewhat. Whether or not this is fair is a matter of opinion. In the history of the EC, only four presidents have lost the popular vote and still won, so it's not something that happens very often.
.
You mean the four times out of 56 elections. That's an 8% fail rate. Would you want to fly on a plane that crashed 8% of the time?

In the history of the EC, the four times the EC overrode the popular will, we've had pretty disasterous presidencies. Hayes sold out everything that was won in the Civil War, and we got 100 years of Jim Crow and segergation. Bush-43. Well, need I say more. I'm a Republican, and I think that guy was a disaster. (Thankfully for the GOP, Obama has been a bigger disaster
Aaaaaand that's where you lost me.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
69,402
Reaction score
12,493
Points
2,180
I like the idea of getting rid of the EC in its' current form but I don't think it should be a straight popular vote.

The EC would be well served if there were a rotation where by 1/3 of the States had proportonal electoral college votes, 1/3 had winner take all, and the final third had straight popular vote where they had no electoral votes up for grabs but just a number of votes to be had.

To win, you have to win the Presidency, you have to win both the EC and the popular vote across all 3 platforms.

For example:

If Romney/Cain or Obama won 275 electoral votes across the 2/3 of the states and lost the popular vote across all 50 states, he would not be the President-Elect; the HOR would decide.

This popular vote enhancement would throw the doors open for 3rd party candidates depending on the states that are in play that year. Also, in the proportional states, if he or she gets 20% of the votes, they get 20% of the electors. This may not be enough to put a Green Party or Libertarian Party candidate into the Oval office but Romney/Cain and Obama will have to compete with these guys and gals.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,674
Reaction score
16,093
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
If we moved to a popular vote system, then the elections would be dominated by urban areas and nobody would pay attention to rural Americans.
What attention are they being paid now and how is the Electoral College responsible for it?
Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado. These are swing states that are relatively small (Colorado is a bit larger) that the presidential candidates compete over in the general election. Had Bush lost New Hampshire in 2000, he would have never been president, and it's worth only 4 electoral votes. If we had a popular vote election nobody would waste their time in New Hampshire or any of those other states I listed in the general election.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
69,402
Reaction score
12,493
Points
2,180
If we moved to a popular vote system, then the elections would be dominated by urban areas and nobody would pay attention to rural Americans.
What attention are they being paid now and how is the Electoral College responsible for it?
Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado. These are swing states that are relatively small (Colorado is a bit larger) that the presidential candidates compete over in the general election. Had Bush lost New Hampshire in 2000, he would have never been president, and it's worth only 4 electoral votes. If we had a popular vote election nobody would waste their time in New Hampshire or any of those other states I listed in the general election.
They don't spend much time there now though in the general election. I suppose it is possible that they will spend NO time there if it were just a straight up popular vote.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
214,151
Reaction score
39,954
Points
2,190
I think they should split electoral votes...

well, i actually don't think there should be an electoral college anymore. it was a way for small states to vote land, because they lacked people. and i've never understood why someone in north dakota's vote should be worth more than mine.
That is why the electoral college wil never change. You would need small population states to agree to forfeit power
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,088
Reaction score
15,785
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I think they should split electoral votes...

well, i actually don't think there should be an electoral college anymore. it was a way for small states to vote land, because they lacked people. and i've never understood why someone in north dakota's vote should be worth more than mine.
That is why the electoral college wil never change. You would need small population states to agree to forfeit power
no matter that each individual voter has per capita power greater than mine does in NY? isn't there something wrong with that?
 
OP
JoeB131

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,080
Reaction score
13,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
If we moved to a popular vote system, then the elections would be dominated by urban areas and nobody would pay attention to rural Americans. Clearly, rural Americans have much different concerns than us urbanites and this helps equal out the influence somewhat. Whether or not this is fair is a matter of opinion. In the history of the EC, only four presidents have lost the popular vote and still won, so it's not something that happens very often.
.
You mean the four times out of 56 elections. That's an 8% fail rate. Would you want to fly on a plane that crashed 8% of the time?

In the history of the EC, the four times the EC overrode the popular will, we've had pretty disasterous presidencies. Hayes sold out everything that was won in the Civil War, and we got 100 years of Jim Crow and segergation. Bush-43. Well, need I say more. I'm a Republican, and I think that guy was a disaster. (Thankfully for the GOP, Obama has been a bigger disaster
Aaaaaand that's where you lost me.
I'm sure I did, but I can't be responsible for your level of denial.

I know I would rather live in any Bush year than any Obama year. I was making better money, working less hard, not constantly worried someone might ship my job to an Asian shithole.

Obama has not made things better, he's made them worse. The smartest thing the Democrats could do is nominate Hillary or someone else.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top