FINALLY!!! A NATIONAL PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTRAL COLLEGE

tommrr

tommrr wrote:

I for one, being a Californian, wish they would change it. Our electors are decided mainly by the Bay area, Los Angeles and a few other areas. If you look at a county by county map, it is suprisingly red, just not populous enough to overcome the big cities. Something along the lines of Nebraska would be good, but if it doesn't change, then I am not going to stress about it.

Another good reason to eliminate the winner-take-all laws.

Having lived in California all my life until I moved to New Mexico nearly three years ago, I know that California is really two states. The large cities along the cost are Blue in the majority. The rural and agricultural interior areas of the state are Red in the majority. There are also major political differences between California's north and south areas.

There were many elections in which my vote was given to the Republican candidate due to the winner-take-all law. To say I was furious would be an understatement.

New Mexico tends to vote Republican in the majority, so it is happening to me all over again. I hate the winner-take-all law.

BBB

0 Replies

Any election incorporates the concept of "winner take all." Wake up. Under your system, if a president wins by a few votes, he takes office as winner takes all. All the people that voted for his opponent are not represented and their votes are stolen according to your mantra. We had a guy here run for commissioner and lost in a recount by less than 10 votes. All of his votes ended up meaning nothing. I might as well have stayed home. I was disenfranchised. Fact of life in any election.

0 Replies

Wow, I am happy to see that you all are talking about this, I just saw a great article in the New Yorker about this campaign, see the link below:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060306ta_talk_hertzberg

Regarding the argument claiming that one voter has more impact in the State that he resides than he would have nation-wide, this just is not true. As okie said, currently, if you vote for the candidate that loses your State, your vote is effectively meaningless. Under the proposed plan, every vote would count in every State, not just Ohio and Florida.

I would like to see this plan succeed. It makes a lot of sense if you read the entire plan. It is more of a State's Rights issue than anything else. The Constitution purposely gives the States the right to do this type of thing.

0 Replies

Bodo

Bodo wrote:

Wow, I am happy to see that you all are talking about this, I just saw a great article in the New Yorker about this campaign, see the link below:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060306ta_talk_hertzberg

Regarding the argument claiming that one voter has more impact in the State that he resides than he would have nation-wide, this just is not true. As okie said, currently, if you vote for the candidate that loses your State, your vote is effectively meaningless. Under the proposed plan, every vote would count in every State, not just Ohio and Florida.

I would like to see this plan succeed. It makes a lot of sense if you read the entire plan. It is more of a State's Rights issue than anything else. The Constitution purposely gives the States the right to do this type of thing.

Bodo, thank you for understanding the proposed plan and supporting it.

BBB

0 Replies

Bodo wrote:

As okie said, currently, if you vote for the candidate that loses your State, your vote is effectively meaningless. Under the proposed plan, every vote would count in every State, not just Ohio and Florida.

Likewise, if you vote for the candidate that loses the nation, your vote is effectively meaningless. Winner takes all.

0 Replies

Bodo wrote:

Wow, I am happy to see that you all are talking about this, I just saw a great article in the New Yorker about this campaign, see the link below:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060306ta_talk_hertzberg

Regarding the argument claiming that one voter has more impact in the State that he resides than he would have nation-wide, this just is not true. As okie said, currently, if you vote for the candidate that loses your State, your vote is effectively meaningless. Under the proposed plan, every vote would count in every State, not just Ohio and Florida.

I would like to see this plan succeed. It makes a lot of sense if you read the entire plan. It is more of a State's Rights issue than anything else. The Constitution purposely gives the States the right to do this type of thing.

Of course the states have the right - they always have. Most of them have chosen NOT to use electoral votes proportionally. Each state can do whatever they want. If you choose to work within your own state - GREAT. More power to you. Just please keep your political actions within your own state, since it is a state's rights issue.

0 Replies

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Anon wrote:
- I think that elimination of the winner-take-all concept would be a good start in doing away with some of the inequity of the Electoral College and would foster better support for additional parties.

Anon

Anon, thanks for actually responding to the proposal, which is the topic of this thread.

Do you think your legislature would support eliminating the winner-take-all law in your state?

BBB

AliceInWonderland wrote:

The only states likely to implement such a change to their electoral college votes are those where the split is typically very close. State like California that are generally tipped pretty far in one direction are unlikely to want to change.

BBB.

I have this thing about equality! I hate elitests and people who think they deserve more just because they are them. That's why I have been giving Okie crap.

Like I finally told Okie, I think that getting rid if the winner take all approach is a great start to equality. I think that approach is why we are stuck with a 2 party system that I think sucks. Right now we have the Republicans and the Kinda-Republicans ... there's no real choice.

I hated John Kerry, but I voted for him because I thought that with the Democrats that we would have a better chance at protecting the environment. I guess at heart, I'm really a "Green", but what chance do they have of making any kind of an impact??

Frankly I don't think anything that will minimize the power that either party currently holds would be approved, therefore I think were probably screwed.

Anon

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

I have this thing about equality! I hate elitests and people who think they deserve more just because they are them. That's why I have been giving Okie crap.

Interesting. Whats all of this you've been saying about how much better California is than all the rest of us? Just because California has been voting lately for Democrat presidential candidates does not mean that Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, and a whole bunch of other states should fall in line. Anon, you keep confirming why we need the electoral college to protect us from the tyranny of big states.

0 Replies

Okie
Okie, you and your "logic" are full of beans. Sadly, you don't even realize your lack of factual knowledge apparently prevents you from understanding and posting about non-germane issues and not the actual proposal despite my efforts to bring you back to the topic of this thread.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Okie

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Okie, you and your "logic" are full of beans. Sadly, you don't even realize your lack of factual knowledge apparently prevents you from understanding and posting about non-germane issues and not the actual proposal despite my efforts to bring you back to the topic of this thread.

BBB

I happen to be on the side of history and I agree with the historical mainstream on this issue, as it has evolved very early on in this country. I have attempted to point out the wisdom and the genius of why the wise people in shaping our country have constructed the electoral college as it is. You and the people proposing this idea are the people that are not really being realistic. The idea is born out of a bunch of losers trying to figure out a way to get around the electoral college so that somebody like Gore might win next time around instead of what happened with Florida in 2000. I do not think your proposal has any chance of succeeding any time soon.

0 Replies

Okie
Okie, you still don't get it. You are so obsessed with supporting the continuation of the Electoral College that you fail to understand that the Proposal is not about eliminating it.

Take a deep breath and clear your brain and focus on eliminating the "Winner-take-all" laws in the states, which is the subject of the proposal and this thread.

As long as you continue to prattle on about protecting the retention of the Electoral College, your posts will be not be germane, off topic, and make you appear to be dense.

BBB

0 Replies

I live in NY, a heavily pro-democrat state based solely on the fact that NYC always votes Dem. Yet, I have no problem with the winner take all system. Instead, I realize that if I want to change the way they vote, better campaigning and education of voters must be done to change who they vote for, not change the system so it benefits me or my views.

0 Replies

Re: Okie

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Okie, you still don't get it. You are so obsessed with supporting the continuation of the Electoral College that you fail to understand that the Proposal is not about eliminating it.

Take a deep breath and clear your brain and focus on eliminating the "Winner-take-all" laws in the states, which is the subject of the proposal and this thread.

As long as you continue to prattle on about protecting the retention of the Electoral College, your posts will be not be germane, off topic, and make you appear to be dense.

BBB

Okay, in all your wisdom, what is it I don't get? Explain it fully in a reasonable manner in your words as to why you think your cited proposals are sound. I don't want some convoluted link to read.

0 Replies

Re: Okie

okie wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Okie, you still don't get it. You are so obsessed with supporting the continuation of the Electoral College that you fail to understand that the Proposal is not about eliminating it.
Take a deep breath and clear your brain and focus on eliminating the "Winner-take-all" laws in the states, which is the subject of the proposal and this thread.
As long as you continue to prattle on about protecting the retention of the Electoral College, your posts will be not be germane, off topic, and make you appear to be dense.
BBB

Okay, in all your wisdom, what is it I don't get? Explain it fully in a reasonable manner in your words as to why you think your cited proposals are sound. I don't want some convoluted link to read.

Okie, this is just another attempt at diversion. I've posted the proposal. I've already stated my reasons for supporting eliminating the winner-tale-all state laws. Quit being mentally lazy! If you can.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Okie

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

okie wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Okie, you still don't get it. You are so obsessed with supporting the continuation of the Electoral College that you fail to understand that the Proposal is not about eliminating it.
Take a deep breath and clear your brain and focus on eliminating the "Winner-take-all" laws in the states, which is the subject of the proposal and this thread.
As long as you continue to prattle on about protecting the retention of the Electoral College, your posts will be not be germane, off topic, and make you appear to be dense.
BBB

Okay, in all your wisdom, what is it I don't get? Explain it fully in a reasonable manner in your words as to why you think your cited proposals are sound. I don't want some convoluted link to read.

Okie, this is just another attempt at diversion. I've posted the proposal. I've already stated my reasons for supporting eliminating the winner-tale-all state laws. Quit being mentally lazy! If you can.

BBB

Asking for a concise summary again, clarifying your position and the most important reasons why you believe your position is correct in your words is a diversion? If you know, it shouldn't be that hard for you.

0 Replies

BBB,

You could better spend your time jumping off a bridge than trying to explain to Okie. It's like riding on a merry go round ... round and round you go!

Anon

0 Replies

Re: Okie

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Okie, this is just another attempt at diversion. I've posted the proposal. I've already stated my reasons for supporting eliminating the winner-tale-all state laws. Quit being mentally lazy! If you can.

BBB

Okay, I went back and reviewed alot of the discussion, mainly your posts. As I understand your argument, the winner take all aspect of the electoral college is your point of crusade here. All of my arguments still apply. You have a position that can be argued. I understand your argument, and have a level of sympathy for it. I just do not favor it for all the reasons discussed already.

One important point here that strikes me if you simply look at it in terms of the numbers. That is: if you convince the states to make the changes that are proposed to have the electors vote in a more proportional manner, you have essentially removed the effect of the power and influence of the states from the election process, even though the electoral college is still used. I happen to like the system as it has evolved into what we have, for all the reasons I've argued already.

Actually, the interesting part of your proposal is if the 2 electoral votes allotted for the senate seats are given according to the majority of voters in each state, plus the remaining votes are split according to how their congressional districts vote, you will still come out with a slightly skewed result, not reflective of the overall popular vote. If your system was used in each and every state, exactly how many electoral votes would Gore and Bush have received in 2000? Perhaps you already had that data included already, but if I missed it, I am interested simply because of the statistical aspect.

0 Replies

Anon

Anon-Voter wrote:

BBB,
You could better spend your time jumping off a bridge than trying to explain to Okie. It's like riding on a merry go round ... round and round you go!
Anon

I know. My patience has run out with okie and I don't plan to waste anymore time trying to improve his knowledge.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Anon

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
BBB,
You could better spend your time jumping off a bridge than trying to explain to Okie. It's like riding on a merry go round ... round and round you go!
Anon

I know. My patience has run out with okie and I don't plan to waste anymore time trying to improve his knowledge.

BBB

So if you can't defend or explain your position in a summary requested by somebody in a debate, you accuse your debate opponent of knowing nothing and quit? So long.

0 Replies

Re: Okie

okie wrote:

The idea is born out of a bunch of losers trying to figure out a way to get around the electoral college so that somebody like Gore might win next time around instead of what happened with Florida in 2000. I do not think your proposal has any chance of succeeding any time soon.

And next time it might be the other way round, and you would have Republicans whining (if that is your point, okie).

What I don't understand is why you wouldn't want to have, in a presidential election, the voters will expressed in the best possible way. Instead you are promoting a system that's working quite randomly.

Here, for your consideration:

Quote:

One little-known (and undesirable) quality of the Electoral College system is the fact that in close elections, the exact number of seats in the House of Representatives becomes a crucial factor in deciding the outcome. The current House size of 435 seats was fixed by an Act of Congress in 1910, not by the constitution, and Congress could change it at will. Since the number of Senators is fixed by the constitution to exactly twice the number of States, enlarging the House would lessen the advantage of smaller states in Presidential elections, while downsizing it would strengthen their advantage. If we take the popular votes cast at the Election of 2000 and the population figures of the 1990 United States Census with the consequential apportionment of House seats to the states as a given, George W. Bush would have won the election for all House sizes less than 491, while Al Gore would have won for all house sizes greater than 598 (except at 655, which gives a tie). In between those two numbers, the winner unsystematically oscillates back and forth many times -- of the 105 house sizes between those numbers, there is a 269/269 tie 23 times, Bush wins 53 times and Gore wins 29 times.

0 Replies

FINALLY!!! A NATIONAL PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTRAL COLLEGE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know