Revamping The Voting System For President

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Each congressional seat determined by majority vote in the district.

Both senators' votes by the state's votes.

Thus, if no candidate for President has a majority of electoral votes, the states' votes, but if a state has 8 GOP and 6 Dem congressional districts and a GOP state majority it gets the two Senate seats, then the state's ECs are split, 10 GOP and 6 Dem. The democratic and republican aspects would receive appropriate representation.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, those 10,000 farmers carry much more weight than the 30 millions in the big cities! Dumbass!

Explain the 600,000 voters in Wyoming getting the same number of Senators as the 40 million in California

 

[rightwinger]

It wouldn't help when electing a president.

Nor should it
The President should represent We the People, not states

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think most of us would agree that the voting system needs some tweaking one way or another. I propose we get rid of the winner take all electoral vote system employed by most states and, instead, have one vote for each county in the country.

Ahhhh - no.

We vote by people not acreage in this country. By pasing votes on geography GOP/DEM legislatures would just consolidate/split counties to their advantage.

Better to talk a two pronged "fix" to the current system***

1. End Gerrymandering and require that states congressional districts be set by a non-partisan commission who are required to set districts based on strict population distribution algorithms to eliminate the fuster cluck of the way they are drawn in some states for political advantage. (And yes, there are computer systems/models that can already do this.)
2. Once that is done, each Congressional District has 1 EC vote based on the majority in that district. Each State has 2 EC votes representing the Senators.

WW

*** Which would require a Constitutional amendment that won't happen.

 

[Independent thinker]

No offense, but you applied no thought to your system.

Actually, I did apply thought to my system. There are far far more red counties than blue counties so Republicans would win all the time. But, don’t tell the dems that.

 

[Independent thinker]

That’s retarded.

Some counties have around a million residents and others have around a thousand.

Retarded.

So how would that be different than what we are doing now with some states being high population and some not?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually, I did apply thought to my system. There are far far more red counties than blue counties so Republicans would win all the time. But, don’t tell the dems that.

No one had to tell them. They knew what what you were attempting to do with the OP's first sentences.

WW

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Actually, I did apply thought to my system. There are far far more red counties than blue counties so Republicans would win all the time. But, don’t tell the dems that.

Actually, you did not.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, you did not.

His thought was
How can my side steal elections?

 

[braalian]

So how would that be different than what we are doing now with some states being high population and some not?

Do all states get one vote? Or do some get more based on population?

 

[Independent thinker]

Do all states get one vote? Or do some get more based on population?

This thread wasn't actually meant to be serious, just as lefties think we should vote by popular vote isn't serious. Any changes they would make to the current system would be some form of popular vote scheme. This is why we continue with our same system, because lefties only want popular vote or some kind of version of it in disguise.

I've actually been reading the autobiography of Thomas Jefferson recently where he talks a lot about what led to us separating from England and how a United States of America should function and a whole lot of that discussion was about the tyranny that could happen with a more populated colony trying to impose their will and their laws over the smaller colonies and what system we should use to stop that from happening. Very relevant to our discussion.

 

[80zephyr]

Nor should it
The President should represent We the People, not states

The president represents the people thru the states. Without the electoral college, every presidential candidate would campaign (and promise) federal resources to the huge population centers in this country. Why would any presidential candidate waste time in places like Utah and Wyoming?

When the US was formed, the only way the small states agreed to join was because of the way the electoral collage was set up.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The president represents the people thru the states. Without the electoral college, every presidential candidate would campaign (and promise) federal resources to the huge population centers in this country. Why would any presidential candidate waste time in places like Utah and Wyoming?

When the US was formed, the only way the small states agreed to join was because of the way the electoral collage was set up.

Even Utards do not waste time in Utah.

 

[80zephyr]

Even Utards do not waste time in Utah.

I don't know what you just said.

 

[rightwinger]

The president represents the people thru the states. Without the electoral college, every presidential candidate would campaign (and promise) federal resources to the huge population centers in this country. Why would any presidential candidate waste time in places like Utah and Wyoming?

When the US was formed, the only way the small states agreed to join was because of the way the electoral collage was set up.

Congress should represent the states
The President should represent the people and each vote should count the same regardless of which state you are in

Right now the president only campaigns in battleground states

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I don't know what you just said.

Utard is the name for Utahns used just in the four states, used only when feeling generous.

 

[80zephyr]

Congress should represent the states
The President should represent the people and each vote should count the same regardless of which state you are in

Right now the president only campaigns in battleground states

And that wouldn't change.

 

[rightwinger]

And that wouldn't change.

Actually, removing states from the equation would do just that.
Today less than ten swing states decide the election.
Both candidates campaign almost exclusively in those states and their platform targets those states

In a popular vote their would be no need to concentrate on states.
Your campaign would focus on issues. Which issues would get you the most votes nationwide

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Explain the 600,000 voters in Wyoming getting the same number of Senators as the 40 million in California

Your knowledge of history is underwhelming once again. Your high school should have taught you better.

The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It established a dual system of congressional representation, creating two houses of Congress: the House of Representatives, where representation is based on state population, and the Senate, where each state has equal representation regardless of size. This compromise was crucial in balancing the interests of both large and small states in the formation of the United States government.

You are the prime example of a dumbass when it comes to government.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Congress should represent the states
The President should represent the people and each vote should count the same regardless of which state you are in

Right now the president only campaigns in battleground states

BS. You lie again!

Remember Trump campaigning in NY? He made stops in KY even though he had it in the bag before he ever ran.