Why
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,138
Jun 26, 2014 4:03:09 GMT
|
Post by Why on Nov 7, 2016 8:13:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 7, 2016 11:15:16 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. I really hate the winner take all for an entire state. It makes the whole system too static, predictable, and difficult to reflect the entire population of the state. So goes the Philly and its immediate surrounding area, so goes the entire state of Pennsylvania, even though a lot of these other areas are more rural and have entirely different concerns - like mining - than Philly does. It bothers me every single election. Imagine if every county contributed one electoral vote!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 7, 2016 11:25:36 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? No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 7, 2016 11:39:26 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? No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence. That's not my perception at all. Our huge cities tend to be very liberal, but our state is not. The suburbs and small towns are running the show.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Nov 7, 2016 15:56:04 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? No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence. The electoral college protects the interests of small states. Do away with the electoral college and those states lose out. And honestly, even with a popular vote, rural residents could still lose out. If it's a popular vote, where do you think candidates will focus their efforts and whose interest will they cater too?
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,987
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Nov 7, 2016 17:08:49 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? No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence. I'm not sure I'm following your "no" train of thought. I think Lucy's point was why bother with the electoral college if you are going to go with proportional voting based on the popular vote within each state. If you are going to split each electoral vote block based on that popular vote, then you are just going to mirror the popular vote of the country as a whole. Therefore, why bother with the complications of the electoral college? In other words, just do away with it and go with the overall popular vote.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 7, 2016 17:14:29 GMT
No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence. I'm not sure I'm following your "no" train of thought. I think Lucy's point was why bother with the electoral college if you are going to go with proportional voting based on the popular vote within each state. If you are going to split each electoral vote block based on that popular vote, then you are just going to mirror the popular vote of the country as a whole. Therefore, why bother with the complications of the electoral college? In other words, just do away with it and go with the overall popular vote. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 7, 2016 18:11:03 GMT
No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence. That's not my perception at all. Our huge cities tend to be very liberal, but our state is not. The suburbs and small towns are running the show. In Texas. Texas has liberal Austin. The rest of the state is pretty much conservative. Imagine the case that is presented to the people of Pennsylvania in Texas. Imagine everywhere in Texas being more liberal than Houston and all the electoral votes for Texas go to Republican every Presidential election for the past quarter century. It's not a perception problem. It's a conservative rural vs liberal city reality for some states.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 7, 2016 18:18:19 GMT
No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence. The electoral college protects the interests of small states. Do away with the electoral college and those states lose out. And honestly, even with a popular vote, rural residents could still lose out. If it's a popular vote, where do you think candidates will focus their efforts and whose interest will they cater too? If states split their electoral votes instead of giving them lump sum, than candidates may have to consider the needs of everyone a bit more than they are now. That's not a popular vote. That's allocating their electoral votes based on location - just as the country as a whole does. The concerns of people in more rural areas would have a greater interest than they do now to our politicians.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 7, 2016 18:35:49 GMT
No. You have huge population inequalities with large cities ending up deciding the entire electoral college votes for the state, even though people living outside of these cities may have entirely different concerns and prefer different candidates. In these state, the electoral vote *IS* the popular vote. Imagine what our Senate would look like if we elected State Senators the same way. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont .... would never, ever, ever have any influence again. That's what's happening now with people who don't live inside a huge metropolis. They have no influence. I'm not sure I'm following your "no" train of thought. I think Lucy's point was why bother with the electoral college if you are going to go with proportional voting based on the popular vote within each state. If you are going to split each electoral vote block based on that popular vote, then you are just going to mirror the popular vote of the country as a whole. Therefore, why bother with the complications of the electoral college? In other words, just do away with it and go with the overall popular vote. A true popular vote would disregard state borders entirely. The electoral vote as designed now tends to disregard borders within a state so that one or two huge cities may decide for everyone in the state where their electoral votes will go. That makes it a popular vote within that state. But our government is not designed to ignore those who live in less populated areas. We give Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware the same voice in the Senate as we give to Texas, California and Florida. We give each congressional district the same voice within the House. By giving block electoral votes by state, we are electing our President by the popular vote in every state but for the rare couple that divide their vote. That's why so many people don't like it. It's not the way we elect our other representatives.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 7, 2016 18:47:36 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 what I would like, percentage, not all or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 7, 2016 18:49:50 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. I really hate the winner take all for an entire state. It makes the whole system too static, predictable, and difficult to reflect the entire population of the state. So goes the Philly and its immediate surrounding area, so goes the entire state of Pennsylvania, even though a lot of these other areas are more rural and have entirely different concerns - like mining - than Philly does. It bothers me every single election. Imagine if every county contributed one electoral vote! You just described Washington state. Seattle/King County vs the rest of the state, which is not all city. The Eastern side of the state has very little say in anything.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 7, 2016 19:09:59 GMT
How does this work? How is it that the electors are chosen and that they get to decide who they are going for rather than abiding by the votes in their state? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 7, 2016 20:30:46 GMT
I'm not sure I'm following your "no" train of thought. I think Lucy's point was why bother with the electoral college if you are going to go with proportional voting based on the popular vote within each state. If you are going to split each electoral vote block based on that popular vote, then you are just going to mirror the popular vote of the country as a whole. Therefore, why bother with the complications of the electoral college? In other words, just do away with it and go with the overall popular vote. Yep. If you kept the electoral college but proportioned the votes based on popular vote within the state it would NOT mirror the popular vote of the country as a whole. The votes in the electoral college are the same as in Congress (with the addition of 3 votes for DC). Just like in Congress. where the House votes represents population and in the Senate each state has equal representation. Therefore small states and less populated states have a higher number of electoral votes than their pure population. You could theoretically still have a difference in the popular vote and the electoral college -although the chances are slimmer than the current winner take all situation.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 7, 2016 21:28:56 GMT
That's not my perception at all. Our huge cities tend to be very liberal, but our state is not. The suburbs and small towns are running the show. In Texas. Texas has liberal Austin. The rest of the state is pretty much conservative. Imagine the case that is presented to the people of Pennsylvania in Texas. Imagine everywhere in Texas being more liberal than Houston and all the electoral votes for Texas go to Republican every Presidential election for the past quarter century. It's not a perception problem. It's a conservative rural vs liberal city reality for some states. The "rest of the state" is conservative only if you exclude the major cities. Houston and Dallas voted for Obama, and I believe SA did, too, obviously in addition to Austin. We have exactly Illinois' problem in reverse. Our suburbs and small towns are running the show and the cities have no voice (at the state level, due to a ridiculous level of gerrymandering). I have a theory that the state level gerrymandering has so demoralized liberals across the state that many just don't turn out in national elections, either, but this may be the election to change that. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Nov 7, 2016 21:57:02 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. I live in a state with a dominant party. If friends and acquaintances are to be believed there are times they don't stress making it to the polls, either because it won't count or they know they're covered. I admit when I'm on the fence or having a hard time deciding I'll vote for the weaker candidate, because I expect my vote to not matter. That could backfire!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 7, 2016 22:02:57 GMT
In Texas. Texas has liberal Austin. The rest of the state is pretty much conservative. Imagine the case that is presented to the people of Pennsylvania in Texas. Imagine everywhere in Texas being more liberal than Houston and all the electoral votes for Texas go to Republican every Presidential election for the past quarter century. It's not a perception problem. It's a conservative rural vs liberal city reality for some states. The "rest of the state" is conservative only if you exclude the major cities. Houston and Dallas voted for Obama, and I believe SA did, too, obviously in addition to Austin. We have exactly Illinois' problem in reverse. Our suburbs and small towns are running the show and the cities have no voice (at the state level, due to a ridiculous level of gerrymandering). I have a theory that the state level gerrymandering has so demoralized liberals across the state that many just don't turn out in national elections, either, but this may be the election to change that. We'll see. Because the entire acreage of Texas is so great, the population not in these great metropolises amount to such a significant number that they actually constitute a significant presence. Other states do not have the land mass nor a total population to balance the density of people living within or immediately surrounding big city limits. Big metro areas should have a vote. More rural areas should have a vote that counts as well. Those votes should count separately and not be combined into one massive electoral lump. That's a decision for each individual state to make and they have. The OP was a theoretical question of ideals and my ideal would be to have each state break their electoral block votes to represent both their metro and their rural areas more fully. ETA - In Texas, that would give liberals more of a say in a Presidential election.
|
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
Jun 28, 2014 14:32:59 GMT
|
Post by suzastampin on Nov 9, 2016 12:50:03 GMT
So, how dies everybody feel this morning? With the latest numbers at
Trump. 58,977,031 Clinton. 59,114,240 Johnson. 3,999,858 Stein. 1,191,080
4th time in history that the President elect has received less votes but wins via the Electoral College
|
|
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 9, 2016 13:13:21 GMT
I honestly don't understand why all states don't have the same rules regarding the electoral college that elects the president.
Some split the vote, most don't. Some require the elector to vote the way the people want, AND SOME DON'T WTF?!
In sure there's more it those two jump out at me.
It's playing with different rules for the same game.
|
|
anaterra
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,844
Location: Texas
Jun 29, 2014 3:04:02 GMT
|
Post by anaterra on Nov 9, 2016 13:19:37 GMT
I am in Texas and truely believe my vote for president doesn't matter... if it were a popular vote... I would try to be as active as compwalla... as things are now... i figure why bother... sad but true
|
|
uksue
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,500
Location: London
Jun 25, 2014 22:33:20 GMT
|
Post by uksue on Nov 9, 2016 13:57:52 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.) What she said!
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 9, 2016 14:04:45 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. I'm one of those who feel my vote doesn't count. My state is solidly republican. It doesn't matter how I vote, all it takes is a 51% popular vote and that will always go R. Now, if they assigned electoral votes according to the actual popular vote of the state, I would be fine wirh it. But knowing that the popular vote could be 51%-49% with all 6 electoral votes going to the 51% winner bothers me. That is not a fair representation of my state's voters. And before anyone plays the "party" card, I would feel exactly the same way if I lived in a D state. I'm not registered wirh either party.
|
|
schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030
Jun 28, 2014 0:26:58 GMT
|
Post by schizo319 on Nov 9, 2016 14:09:01 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. I chose yes (rescind), but this seems like a very reasonable compromise. I never understood "winner take all".
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 9, 2016 14:16:01 GMT
CNN just said Clinton is leading in the popular vote. So clearly the electoral votes don't reflect the true wishes of the voters.
My state should have been 4-2, not 6-0. It would be interesting to see how the other 100% states' popular votes broke down & how much difference it would have made.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 9, 2016 14:21:15 GMT
She is ahead with 47.6% of the popular vote to 47.5% for Trump.
Our founders did not intend for this country to be a strict Democracy and the EC was implemented because the concerns of the different states, villages, towns etc were not all the same. There was great concern that the major port cities and states, like NY, Mass., Virginia would dominate every election if Presidents were determined by a strictly popular vote. The EC gave the more rural and less populated areas the ability to band together to protect their interests.
Take a look at a map of the election to see why the EC is still a good thing. Clinton won the west coast, the Northeast and NY, all very heavily populated coastal states. The entire heartland of the country went to Trump. The surfer in CA has very different interests and concerns than the corn farmer in Kansas. In a strictly popular vote, the coastal states would determine every election and the entire heartland would be ignored by our politicians.
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Nov 9, 2016 14:23:20 GMT
CNN just said Clinton is leading in the popular vote. So clearly the electoral votes don't reflect the true wishes of the voters. My state should have been 4-2, not 6-0. It would be interesting to see how the other 100% states' popular votes broke down & how much difference it would have made.
You'd have to figure out how to deal with rounding issues, but I have it that of the 497 declared electoral votes, Clinton would have 241 and Trump 239 (and 17 for 'other' as a category - although as that would be split between several candidates in practice that would definitely factor into how the rounding issue was resolved).
Straight proportional voting would mean that you'd rarely if ever get a candidate with a simple majority of electoral votes due to those third party candidates.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 9, 2016 15:19:37 GMT
CNN just said Clinton is leading in the popular vote. So clearly the electoral votes don't reflect the true wishes of the voters. My state should have been 4-2, not 6-0. It would be interesting to see how the other 100% states' popular votes broke down & how much difference it would have made.
You'd have to figure out how to deal with rounding issues, but I have it that of the 497 declared electoral votes, Clinton would have 241 and Trump 239 (and 17 for 'other' as a category - although as that would be split between several candidates in practice that would definitely factor into how the rounding issue was resolved).
Straight proportional voting would mean that you'd rarely if ever get a candidate with a simple majority of electoral votes due to those third party candidates.
Thanks for doing the math! Makes me shake my head but I guess if it's been this way since the beginning who am I to complain.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 9, 2016 15:22:23 GMT
I already voted 'not sure' but after more thinking I would change my vote to a resounding Yes.
|
|