|
Post by Really Red on Nov 6, 2016 15:31:30 GMT
I find it hard to believe that in 2016 we still have an electoral college. I think it's very frustrating to most of the country when they feel that their individual vote does not count, because they are not in a "swing state."
I don't know what we have to do to move towards rescinding the electoral college, I just don't understand why we haven't done it, unless political candidates believe it favors them.
what are your thoughts? Do any "regular" Americans think we should keep the electoral college?
|
|
|
Post by southerngirl on Nov 6, 2016 15:37:55 GMT
I am fine with the electoral college. I find it weird how many people think their vote doesn't count just because their state's population predominantly votes one way or the other. Because of course your vote counts, it's just the majority of the people in your state feel differently so you aren't getting the outcome you want. What makes a state a swing state is where there is not a clear majority. That is all determined by popular vote, it's just that it's determined by the popular vote in each state rather than the popular vote nationally. So I don't think removing the electoral college will change the feelings of people who feel their vote doesn't count just because more people vote the opposite of them. That will happen nationally as well. But I also don't care if we remove the electoral college and go to popular national vote. I know my vote counts either way.
|
|
paget
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,751
Jun 25, 2014 21:16:39 GMT
|
Post by paget on Nov 6, 2016 15:41:08 GMT
I voted not sure. I always wanted to get rid of it until the other day I was listening to the news and they were saying if it was abolished then the candidates would pander to big cities and do things that would benefit them as that's were the majority of the votes would come from a popular vote. Then the smaller states and cities would be left in the dust. ThaT made sense to me but I don't know if it would really be like that. I also hate the feeling many people have (including me) that our core doesn't count. So I put unsure.
I think if we had viable multi candidate system it may help the electoral college... Wait, maybe it would make it worse. Hell, I don't know...
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Nov 6, 2016 15:43:49 GMT
I think opening up this would be a can of worms.. it has worked.. not always the best.. and I don't think we should change. it does protect small states.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 6, 2016 15:44:23 GMT
I think voter turnout would be much higher if we did away with it. I think candidates will continue to "cater" to voters wherever they think they can get them. Big city, rural, whatever - no one's going to overlook potential voters.
As it is right now, they're only "catering" to swing states. As if Florida should get to decide the outcome of the election for the whole country.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Nov 6, 2016 15:54:15 GMT
I voted not sure because I don't know enough about the Pro/Con arguments.
Isn't it only a couple times that someone lost the popular vote but not the EC vote (e.g. Bush/Gore)?
See, I don't even know that. Like I said: need more research.
ETA: I agree that the targeted campaigning is really unfortunate; the founding fathers never would have anticipated these marathon campaigns.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 6, 2016 15:58:57 GMT
No, I think we should keep it. However, in order to have it more accurately reflect the popular vote the electoral votes in each state should be apportioned to each candidate in proportion to the popular vote each candidate got rather than winner take all.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Nov 6, 2016 16:21:26 GMT
It will take a constitutional amendment to rescind it. I can not imagine that happening in the current climate. But I am all for rescinding it.
I don't understand changing it, either keep it or get rid of it.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 6, 2016 16:24:38 GMT
Look up the purpose behind the electoral college. I have explained why it's important here too many times to do it again.
|
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,706
Jun 28, 2014 17:36:35 GMT
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Nov 6, 2016 16:28:23 GMT
Absolutely not.
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Nov 6, 2016 16:34:09 GMT
No, I think we should keep it. However, in order to have it more accurately reflect the popular vote the electoral votes in each state should be apportioned to each candidate in proportion to the popular vote each candidate got rather than winner take all. Not my country but I think this is about as close to an ideal 'fair' solution as there is. (and closer to home, I would like the UK to change from First-Past-the-Post to a Proportional Representation system.)
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Nov 6, 2016 16:35:14 GMT
I'm one who is realistic and I realize statistically my vote does not carry as much weight as if I lived in a swing state. Our state also has very few electoral votes. Sure it matters because it's the American thing to do, it took women a long time to have the right, in a close election it *slightly* matters more..... I'll still vote because of local elections. Even then, it will probably be all Republican. I have mixed feelings about the electoral college. I doubt it will ever change.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 11:59:45 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 16:49:03 GMT
I think we can devise a system that is similar to the current electoral vote system but that is divided by the percentage of votes in the state.
A state like Illinois, for example, almost always trends predominately Democrat, yet almost every area outside of Chicago itself leans Republican. The state's electoral votes should be divided how the state votes - for example 60% to the Democrat candidate and 40% to the Republican candidate (or whatever the breakdown in the votes are).
I don't know that the system itself is irreparably broken and needs to be throw out, but I do think that improvements need to be made to reflect current times as well as population trends.
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Nov 6, 2016 17:14:50 GMT
No, I think we should keep it. However, in order to have it more accurately reflect the popular vote the electoral votes in each state should be apportioned to each candidate in proportion to the popular vote each candidate got rather than winner take all. Not my country but I think this is about as close to an ideal 'fair' solution as there is. (and closer to home, I would like the UK to change from First-Past-the-Post to a Proportional Representation system.) New Zealand did this in 1993 and I think it's a good way to go. It results in much more cooperation between parties because usually no-one has the numbers to govern alone. SaveSave
|
|
breetheflea
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,917
Location: PNW
Jul 20, 2014 21:57:23 GMT
|
Post by breetheflea on Nov 6, 2016 18:01:02 GMT
I like how Maine and one other state I can't remember do things and split by percentage. I live in Washington, a blue state and all 12 electoral votes go blue even if it's 51% to 49% so half of the state IS NOT represented. Although I read yesterday one of electors says he won't cast his vote for Clinton even though technically he is supposed to. It will be interesting to see what happens there.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 6, 2016 18:07:21 GMT
I don't understand the point of going proportional on electoral college votes. If you're going to do that, then why bother with the electoral college at all? It would be the same result as just going with the popular vote, wouldn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 11:59:45 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 18:13:21 GMT
I don't understand the point of going proportional on electoral college votes. If you're going to do that, then why bother with the electoral college at all? It would be the same result as just going with the popular vote, wouldn't it? Essentially, but since there are a couple of states that already do this, it would be a shorter path to a more equitable system than abolishing it and starting from scratch with a popular vote system. If there are states already doing it, there is absolutely no reason that we can't or shouldn't convert the entire system. On that note, does anyone know how or why those states came about to using a split electoral college vote system? Why those states and not others? ETA: This is no shade on you Lucy, but I think if you lived in a state where your vote "didn't count" it probably would feel like more of a priority. It's very disheartening to go to the polls when you know that no matter what, your state is ruled by one specific area of the state that has no real relationship to how the people in the entire rest of the state live or believe.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Nov 6, 2016 18:25:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by SallyPA on Nov 6, 2016 19:36:19 GMT
I don't understand the point of going proportional on electoral college votes. If you're going to do that, then why bother with the electoral college at all? It would be the same result as just going with the popular vote, wouldn't it? Exactly this. If the electoral votes are proportional to the populist vote then why even bother. Isn't it the "winner take all" part of the EC that makes it work so that it isn't exactly proportional to popular vote? What am I missing?
|
|
breetheflea
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,917
Location: PNW
Jul 20, 2014 21:57:23 GMT
|
Post by breetheflea on Nov 6, 2016 19:47:33 GMT
I don't understand the point of going proportional on electoral college votes. If you're going to do that, then why bother with the electoral college at all? It would be the same result as just going with the popular vote, wouldn't it? Exactly this. If the electoral votes are proportional to the populist vote then why even bother. Isn't it the "winner take all" part of the EC that makes it work so that it isn't exactly proportional to popular vote? What am I missing? It would probably be easier than trying to get rid of the electoral college, which I read somewhere they have tried 700 times in the past 200 years to get rid of it. Maybe if it went state by state there would be a chance of eventually all 48 remaining states getting on board...
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Nov 6, 2016 20:04:53 GMT
Small states would never vote to do away with the electoral college and I don't think a change would get enough votes to go through.
People who don't live in a swing state don't feel their vote counts, but actually breaking a larger election into smaller contests does give individual votes more power.
Another way to think about it is do you think we should count each individual game in the world series, or just take the total number of runs and decide a winner that way.
I get the arguments against the electoral college, but think there are multiple things that could be changes for the better before we get to changing the electoral college.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Nov 6, 2016 20:17:17 GMT
I am also curious if people who want to do away with the electoral college have any issues with how congressional seats are proportioned (since that is what electoral votes are based on). Would you prefer we did the Senate seats by overall popular vote instead of by state?
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Nov 6, 2016 20:19:29 GMT
I don't understand the point of going proportional on electoral college votes. If you're going to do that, then why bother with the electoral college at all? It would be the same result as just going with the popular vote, wouldn't it? Exactly this. If the electoral votes are proportional to the populist vote then why even bother. Isn't it the "winner take all" part of the EC that makes it work so that it isn't exactly proportional to popular vote? What am I missing? . I think the only way you could do it is award two electoral votes per state based on overall winner and then make the remaining votes proportional based on popular vote.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,987
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Nov 6, 2016 20:30:26 GMT
You cannot "abolish" the electoral college without a constitutional amendment. There is also no way to force individual states to change to a proportional method without an amendment.
Individual states where the voters tend to go one party at the state level but have recently been voting for the other side at the presidential level would probably be more likely to voluntarily choose to make their vote proportional. But any state that has trends to one party locally AND in the presidential race would have no reason to change.
Take Texas or California, for example, one solidly red and one solidly blue for the most part. Why would the Republican Texas legislature vote for something that would give part of their reliably Republican electoral votes to a Democrat? And why would the Democrats in California want to allow part of their votes to go to a Republican?
But a state like Virginia, with a pretty strong Republican-controlled state legislature, might choose to go with proportional voting since they have recently been trending to the Democrat side in presidential elections.
Then again, they might not want to lose their status as a swing state that might give them more access to federal attention during non-election years by both sides trying to court their electoral votes.
I am against abolishing the electoral college as I think there is still validity in balancing power between those in smaller, rural states and those in the larger, more urban states.
Some states have had proposals to create "mini-electoral colleges" within their own boundaries, where each congressional voting district determines where its electoral vote will go. (I believe I recall such a proposal in VA when I lived there, and IIRC other states were thinking about it, too). These districts are already ridiculously gerrymandered to favor the party in power at the time they are drawn, which has a disproportionate effect on representation in Congress. It would be even worse if that were to affect the presidential election as well.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Nov 6, 2016 21:43:56 GMT
I don't want to do away with it or create a proportioned system. I think it would turn dozens if not hundreds of precincts into situations like Florida 2000. Anytime a vote was close anywhere, recounts would be demanded. Unless an election was a blow-out, it would be never ending.
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
Post by scrappinghappy on Nov 7, 2016 0:35:55 GMT
No, I think we should keep it. However, in order to have it more accurately reflect the popular vote the electoral votes in each state should be apportioned to each candidate in proportion to the popular vote each candidate got rather than winner take all. So Florida has 35 electoral votes. If it's 51/49 split then 18 votes go one way and 17 the other. A MUCH better representation of the popular vote. As I write this though, wouldn't that just be the same result as the popular vote and if we got rid of the electoral college we'd be cutting out a step to the same result without effecting the result? Someone correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption. If we keep the electoral college, FEDERAL LAW, not state law, should require that every electoral seat votes the way they are required to vote by the people of the state, whose vote they REPRESENT, with no option to change their vote according to their own personal preference. That just makes NO sense whatsoever. For a presidential election every state should be following federal laws regarding voting, whatever those federal laws end up being so that there is a continuity amongst all the states with every elector having the exact same restrictions and encumbrances and responsibilities as to how they vote. Ah, but then we wouldn't need actual people in those positions because we would know exactly the outcome without a vote. So we'd have an electoral vote but not any electors. Complicated much?!
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
Post by scrappinghappy on Nov 7, 2016 0:37:43 GMT
I think we can devise a system that is similar to the current electoral vote system but that is divided by the percentage of votes in the state. A state like Illinois, for example, almost always trends predominately Democrat, yet almost every area outside of Chicago itself leans Republican. The state's electoral votes should be divided how the state votes - for example 60% to the Democrat candidate and 40% to the Republican candidate (or whatever the breakdown in the votes are). I don't know that the system itself is irreparably broken and needs to be throw out, but I do think that improvements need to be made to reflect current times as well as population trends. What would Illinois voting ACTAULLY look like if we got rid of the gerrymandering? Wonder of those percentages would change?
|
|
|
Post by Tasha on Nov 7, 2016 0:38:23 GMT
No, I think we should keep it. However, in order to have it more accurately reflect the popular vote the electoral votes in each state should be apportioned to each candidate in proportion to the popular vote each candidate got rather than winner take all. This is exactly what I would do. SaveSave
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Nov 7, 2016 0:42:00 GMT
I think we can devise a system that is similar to the current electoral vote system but that is divided by the percentage of votes in the state. A state like Illinois, for example, almost always trends predominately Democrat, yet almost every area outside of Chicago itself leans Republican. The state's electoral votes should be divided how the state votes - for example 60% to the Democrat candidate and 40% to the Republican candidate (or whatever the breakdown in the votes are). I don't know that the system itself is irreparably broken and needs to be throw out, but I do think that improvements need to be made to reflect current times as well as population trends. What would Illinois voting ACTAULLY look like if we got rid of the gerrymandering? Wonder of those percentages would change? Wait. How did gerrymandering get involved? Cook County is Democratic no matter which way you slice it.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 7, 2016 7:50:52 GMT
I don't understand the point of going proportional on electoral college votes. If you're going to do that, then why bother with the electoral college at all? It would be the same result as just going with the popular vote, wouldn't it? Essentially, but since there are a couple of states that already do this, it would be a shorter path to a more equitable system than abolishing it and starting from scratch with a popular vote system. If there are states already doing it, there is absolutely no reason that we can't or shouldn't convert the entire system. On that note, does anyone know how or why those states came about to using a split electoral college vote system? Why those states and not others? ETA: This is no shade on you Lucy, but I think if you lived in a state where your vote "didn't count" it probably would feel like more of a priority. It's very disheartening to go to the polls when you know that no matter what, your state is ruled by one specific area of the state that has no real relationship to how the people in the entire rest of the state live or believe. Thanks for the explanation. I don't personally care much whether there's an Electoral College or not, but I do think every state's votes should should be counted the same way ... either winner-take-all or proportional. IOW, I would not be willing to have California go proportional while Texas remained winner-takes-all. And you're right, I don't get the thing about votes not counting. Your vote in a solid (the other way) state counts just as much as any vote for the eventual loser, anywhere in the country. It's just a fact that some people are going to vote for the loser and a few more people are going to vote for the winner. Every vote is important, every time. Even if it's just a matter of your candidate making a respectable, if losing, showing, as opposed to a total wipeout. It matters.
|
|