Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:56:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 18:21:49 GMT
A couple of Democratic Candidates have come out in favor of eliminating the Electoral College and select our presidents by a popular vote. The latest is Elizabeth Warren.
Which prompted this from Lindsay Graham..
”The desire to abolish the Electoral College is driven by the idea Democrats want rural America to go away politically.”
I have felt for some time the EC should be eliminated.
Those who who want to keep it, say it’s necessary so states like CA don’t run over the less populated states in the mid-west. But to me that just didn’t make sense.
Then it hit me. This country is “We the People” and not “We the States”. As a voter, how I vote today in CA for President would be the same way I would for President in Wyoming. How I would vote in local elections would be determined by environment I would be living in.
Then I read this response to Graham by one Angela Belcamir which IMO sums it up nicely.
”Abolishing the electoral college assures that everyone’s vote counts, the majority wins, and elections are not decided by states.
It’s that simple.”
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 19, 2019 18:30:19 GMT
I don't think the electoral college should be abolished. What I do think is that it should be broken down by congressional district. Each congressional district should get one vote, the two extra per state go to the statewide winner.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,145 
|
Post by Just T on Mar 19, 2019 18:31:59 GMT
I read something not too long ago that I thought was a good idea, but what do I know? I'm sure there are good reasons against it, but I'm not up on all the ins and outs of the idea. Which is basically to award the electoral college votes based on a percentage. So if the R candidate received 70% of the popular votes in a given state, they received 70% of the electoral college votes, giving the other % of the EC votes to the candidate(s) that earned that percentage of the popular vote. It seems to me that would be a good way to ensure the overall winner is closer to the popular vote while ensuring people that their vote does indeed count, especially in states that is is pretty well determined which way it will go.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:56:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 18:36:32 GMT
From the debate on twitter..
This from a Matt...
”Also, popular vote means removing rural America from the political table. Not just diminishing then. Removing them.”
Prompted this truth from b-boy..
”tell me, how much representation to the 4 million rural residents of california get in a presidential election?”
Just checked, there are 24 states with a population of less then the estimated rural population in CA. And I understand not all these smaller states are only rural areas. If votes from other rural areas are so important, shouldn't these rural votes be just as important?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 19, 2019 18:43:17 GMT
Yes, abolish it. It has nothing to do with urban vs. rural. The conservative voters in California have as much right to be heard as the liberal voters in Texas, and right now none of us has a voice. Everything is decided by a small subset of voters in a few "swing" states.
While we're at it, let's change it so that all presidential primaries are on the same day. Right now Iowa, New Hampshire and SC are deciding our candidates for us or narrowing them down significantly.
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,891
Location: Kansas City -ish
|
Post by Anita on Mar 19, 2019 18:52:22 GMT
I've been saying the states thing for a long time, and I think the electoral college is asinine. Abolish it. One person, one vote, period. Popular vote wins. Geography should have zero to do with it.
|
|
likescarrots
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,879
|
Post by likescarrots on Mar 19, 2019 18:58:21 GMT
I'm not against the concept and i agree with a popular vote presidential election, however I have real concerns with changing the Constitution and how doing so would have the potential to unleash some horrible human rights violations.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:56:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 18:59:21 GMT
I have long thought the electoral college contributed to the political divide. It should be one person, one vote and every vote should matter. It seems like all other elections in this country are done by popular vote. Why not the presidential one too?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:56:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 19:04:36 GMT
The candidates love it - it means they get to focus their money on a handful of "battleground" states and pretty much write off all the others as D or R.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,145
|
Post by Just T on Mar 19, 2019 19:12:59 GMT
Yes, abolish it. It has nothing to do with urban vs. rural. The conservative voters in California have as much right to be heard as the liberal voters in Texas, and right now none of us has a voice. Everything is decided by a small subset of voters in a few "swing" states. While we're at it, let's change it so that all presidential primaries are on the same day. Right now Iowa, New Hampshire and SC are deciding our candidates for us or narrowing them down significantly. I 100% agree with this statement. I admit, I only had 1 basic government class in college as it wasn't part of my major, but I have never understood why they can't all be on the same day. I'd love for someone to explain it to me so I can stop wondering. LOL |
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Mar 19, 2019 19:18:30 GMT
The way it's done now, my vote didn't count. My state is all-or-nothing. The popular vote here was 60-40, but 100% of the EC votes went to the candidate with 60%. That didn't accurately reflect the popular vote.
Now, if they want to split our EC votes according to the popular vote, I have no problem with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 19, 2019 19:47:16 GMT
The way it's done now, my vote didn't count. My state is all-or-nothing. The popular vote here was 60-40, but 100% of the EC votes went to the candidate with 60%. That didn't accurately reflect the popular vote. Now, if they want to split our EC votes according to the popular vote, I have no problem with it. I think, and may be 100% wrong, that the states determine how to EC votes are distributed within the state.... It has been a very long time since I was in school. But eliminating the EC requires a vote on changes to the Constitution by each state. |
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Mar 19, 2019 19:58:01 GMT
The way it's done now, my vote didn't count. My state is all-or-nothing. The popular vote here was 60-40, but 100% of the EC votes went to the candidate with 60%. That didn't accurately reflect the popular vote. Now, if they want to split our EC votes according to the popular vote, I have no problem with it. I think, and may be 100% wrong, that the states determine how to EC votes are distributed within the state.... It has been a very long time since I was in school. But eliminating the EC requires a vote on changes to the Constitution by each state. This is the way I understand it, as well. And unfortunately I don't see it changing any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by mustlovecats on Mar 19, 2019 20:07:37 GMT
I don't think the electoral college should be abolished. What I do think is that it should be broken down by congressional district. Each congressional district should get one vote, the two extra per state go to the statewide winner. How do you account for the variance in population of congressional districts? This makes votes in different districts weigh differently. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 19, 2019 20:12:54 GMT
I don't think the electoral college should be abolished. What I do think is that it should be broken down by congressional district. Each congressional district should get one vote, the two extra per state go to the statewide winner. How do you account for the variance in population of congressional districts? This makes votes in different districts weigh differently. The variance in congressional districts is a lot smaller than by state. Congressional districts are drawn based on population numbers from the census. |
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,556
|
Post by cycworker on Mar 19, 2019 20:41:21 GMT
I'm Canadian, so I have no real say... But that's never stopped me before, so I won't let it stop me today.  If removing the Electoral College requires a Constitutional amendment, I'm not sure that's the best way to try to go. One thing our countries have in common is that our Constitutions are deliberately set up in ways that make them difficult to amend... I would argue nearly impossible, given the threshold that has to be met. That has pros & cons, as I learned when we went through the Charlottetown & Meech Lake Accord debates. Anyway.. much better to focus on two things... first, get every state to pass something that requires a candidate to release tax records in order to be on the ballot. And second, award each states' EC votes via proportional representation, as opposed to winner take all. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:56:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 20:54:43 GMT
linkHopefully I got it. NPR has this guy who does YouTube videos on different subjects called Ron’s Office Hours. In this link the video is about about the Electoral Vollege and the way it’s suppose to work. Its short, but informative.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustlovecats on Mar 19, 2019 20:56:31 GMT
How do you account for the variance in population of congressional districts? This makes votes in different districts weigh differently. The variance in congressional districts is a lot smaller than by state. Congressional districts are drawn based on population numbers from the census. There’s a 100,000+ variance between my district and less populous districts in rural parts of the state. Over an eighth. One person one vote contends with the variance a lot better than counting districts. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Mar 19, 2019 21:00:58 GMT
The variance in congressional districts is a lot smaller than by state. Congressional districts are drawn based on population numbers from the census. There’s a 100,000+ variance between my district and less populous districts in rural parts of the state. Over an eighth. One person one vote contends with the variance a lot better than counting districts. Ok. Well in my opinion, the chances of states ratifying an amendment to the Constitution to abolish the electoral college is pretty much DOA. My move is moderate, could be palatable, and is a move much closer to equality. All I was offering was a suggestion. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:56:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 21:25:07 GMT
I'm Canadian, so I have no real say... But that's never stopped me before, so I won't let it stop me today.  If removing the Electoral College requires a Constitutional amendment, I'm not sure that's the best way to try to go. One thing our countries have in common is that our Constitutions are deliberately set up in ways that make them difficult to amend... I would argue nearly impossible, given the threshold that has to be met. That has pros & cons, as I learned when we went through the Charlottetown & Meech Lake Accord debates. Anyway.. much better to focus on two things... first, get every state to pass something that requires a candidate to release tax records in order to be on the ballot. And second, award each states' EC votes via proportional representation, as opposed to winner take all. No question adding an Amendment is a royal pain. But getting all 50 states to award their EC votes in the same way would be just like hearding a bunch of cats. Good luck with that. I believe to get a new Amendment added, it would need the approval of 2/3 of the states vs all 50 of the states agreeing to award their EC votes the same way. And in order for it to work, it would have to be all states doing it. Having said that, something needs to be done as 2016 was the second time the winner of the popular vote did not win the presidency in the last 20-25 years. Right now the Republicans are against doing anything that changes this because their guy is coming out the winner. But say trump wins the popular vote but loses in the EC. Besides trump claiming it’s all rigged, it would drive home the point to Republicans, hey this can happen to us, so maybe we should fix it. As far as requiring tax return to be on the ballot. I know some states are working toward that, but my guess it will be shot down in the Supreme Court. There are few requirements for running for President and they have been around for 240 years. The only reason the candidates started releasing their tax returns was because of Nixon. And that wasn’t all that long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 19, 2019 21:41:44 GMT
I'm not against the concept and i agree with a popular vote presidential election, however I have real concerns with changing the Constitution and how doing so would have the potential to unleash some horrible human rights violations. How so? |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 19, 2019 21:44:32 GMT
Yes, abolish it. It has nothing to do with urban vs. rural. The conservative voters in California have as much right to be heard as the liberal voters in Texas, and right now none of us has a voice. Everything is decided by a small subset of voters in a few "swing" states. While we're at it, let's change it so that all presidential primaries are on the same day. Right now Iowa, New Hampshire and SC are deciding our candidates for us or narrowing them down significantly. yes |
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,248
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Mar 19, 2019 21:48:22 GMT
How do you account for the variance in population of congressional districts? This makes votes in different districts weigh differently. The variance in congressional districts is a lot smaller than by state. Congressional districts are drawn based on population numbers from the census. The fact that states draw the congressional districts is what makes this proposal dangerous. I’m isn’t that hard to draw a map that insures the minority party will win. In 2012, Democrats won 51% of the popular vote in NC, but they only won 4 out of 13 seats in the House? Why? The district maps were drawn to concentrate Democrats into a few districts, and with only a small part of the population in the remaining districts, they had no chance of electing other Democrats. At least with the winner-take-all approach of the EC, the states cannot manipulate their boundaries to rig the election. The way current Congrssional maps are drawn, this a Proportional award of votes would all but guarantee a Republican President for the next several elections. Given three choices—current EC, popular vote, or proportional award of EC votes—I would take either of the first two over this one. |
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
|
Post by AmandaA on Mar 19, 2019 21:58:26 GMT
I would just like to point out that the Constitution has been amended 27 times since its creation... and more than half of those happened in the 20th century and did some pretty important things. So I cannot understand the concern about that setting us on some nefarious path. Now actually accomplishing it... that is a whole other can of worms.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 19, 2019 22:03:25 GMT
Yes, abolish it. It has nothing to do with urban vs. rural. The conservative voters in California have as much right to be heard as the liberal voters in Texas, and right now none of us has a voice. Everything is decided by a small subset of voters in a few "swing" states. While we're at it, let's change it so that all presidential primaries are on the same day. Right now Iowa, New Hampshire and SC are deciding our candidates for us or narrowing them down significantly. I 100% agree with this statement. I admit, I only had 1 basic government class in college as it wasn't part of my major, but I have never understood why they can't all be on the same day. I'd love for someone to explain it to me so I can stop wondering. LOL Because- home rule- each state sets its own Primary and election procedures. Same reason some states gave open or closed primaries or a caucus. Several years ago NJ made its primary earlier 2008 the NJ Primary was in Feb. on ‘super Tuesday’ and itcstayed that way until 2011 but in his ‘wisdom’ Gov Christie moved it back to June saying it was ‘cheaper’ but co sideting the other money he wasted it’s a tiny drop in the bucket. But for 1 presidential election NJ mattered, or tried to. |
|
Loydene
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,639
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
|
Post by Loydene on Mar 19, 2019 22:12:52 GMT
It will take an amendment to the constitution, but it really is no longer relevant. We can vote by computer - libraries can be opened, voter registrations can be done digitally -- our lives and times have changed so much since the electoral college was created that it is really outdated now. There have now been two elections where the popular vote was disregarded in favor of the electoral college .... that really shouldn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 19, 2019 22:14:39 GMT
Anyway.. much better to focus on two things... first, get every state to pass something that requires a candidate to release tax records in order to be on the ballot. NJ currently has a bill in its legislature doing this ONLY for presidential elections, but people are going crazy over it saying it’s taking away the voters choice and inhibiting thier right to vote by limiting the voters choices. They are freaking out saying it’s a specific anti Trump rule. 🙄 It will be challenged in court if passed. My opinion is that it’s not any more limiting my voting choices that any other rule about being a presidential candidate. Setting a minimum age limits my choice of president maybe there’s a brilliant 20 yo out there I wanted to vote for. Or maybe someone actually would have voted for Schwarzenegger but you know that pesky citizen rule stood in the way. I don’t think it’s wrong to set parameters running for public office. But they have to be consistent and apply to all. BUT where they went wrong was writing the bill for only presidential candidates. If transparency is needed then it’s needed for all candidates. Then it’s fair & cant be construed as anti Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 19, 2019 22:16:29 GMT
The variance in congressional districts is a lot smaller than by state. Congressional districts are drawn based on population numbers from the census. The fact that states draw the congressional districts is what makes this proposal dangerous. I’m isn’t that hard to draw a map that insures the minority party will win. In 2012, Democrats won 51% of the popular vote in NC, but they only won 4 out of 13 seats in the House? Why? The district maps were drawn to concentrate Democrats into a few districts, and with only a small part of the population in the remaining districts, they had no chance of electing other Democrats. At least with the winner-take-all approach of the EC, the states cannot manipulate their boundaries to rig the election. The way current Congrssional maps are drawn, this a Proportional award of votes would all but guarantee a Republican President for the next several elections. Given three choices—current EC, popular vote, or proportional award of EC votes—I would take either of the first two over this one. That is true, I hadn’t thought of it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Mar 19, 2019 23:01:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Mar 20, 2019 2:30:21 GMT
Colorado's legislature just passed a law that will give its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote if and when enough other states do it to get 270.
It is being challenged.
The argument against the popular vote is that it takes the voice of the smaller population states away. Wyoming has less than 600,000 people and has 3 electoral votes. That gives them more say than the popular vote would and thus Wyoming gets a say, albeit a small one.
They complain because new york and California will get x percent of the vote, but in reality they already have 15% of the vote. What they dont consider is that in a popular vote, those who voted Republican in those areas would be represented and the total number of votes for the Democrat could be a lower percentage than the electoral college would allow.
But the GOP is scared that since the big cities often go blue that they would start to lose the red states as all votes would be counted. It really has nothing to do with the two big blue states.
Nebraska and one other state gives their electoral votes based on percentage. If we have to keep the ec, a good compromise would be that
|
|
