PDA

View Full Version : For Those That Want To Abolish The EC


Donger
11-02-2004, 10:44 AM
How about this as an alternative: Whoever wins the most states wins the election? If tied, it goes to the House.

My wife asked this last night. She's not political at all, and she asked my opinion.

Opinions? It sure looks like it would favor Republicans, but what about the basic theory behind it?

Amnorix
11-02-2004, 10:48 AM
How about this as an alternative: Whoever wins the most states wins the election? If tied, it goes to the House.

My wife asked this last night. She's not political at all, and she asked my opinion.

Opinions? It sure looks like it would favor Republicans, but what about the basic theory behind it?

So the opinion of 100,000 Alaskans (or whatever) has exactly the same weight as 40 million Californians? err....no.

That's moving us further away from being a Democracy than even the Founding Fathers had us.

Donger
11-02-2004, 11:03 AM
So the opinion of 100,000 Alaskans (or whatever) has exactly the same weight as 40 million Californians? err....no.

That's moving us further away from being a Democracy than even the Founding Fathers had us.

True. Although if I had to hang a label on her, it would be something close to Fascist.

:)

DaKCMan AP
11-02-2004, 11:04 AM
So the opinion of 100,000 Alaskans (or whatever) has exactly the same weight as 40 million Californians? err....no.

That's moving us further away from being a Democracy than even the Founding Fathers had us.

bingo

Amnorix
11-02-2004, 11:08 AM
True. Although if I had to hang a label on her, it would be something close to Fascist.

:)

Ah, well, I see.

Please don't tell us about any stories involving her wearing jack boots and wielding a little whip thingy... :):p

Braincase
11-02-2004, 11:09 AM
I say break up the EC votes within a state to match the voting ratios as close as possible, with a victor in a state always receiving at least one more vote than the second place guy.

State has 5 votes, and it breaks 60/40, then one candidate gets 3 votes, the other gets two.

If a state has 4 votes, and it's a 60/40 split, then one guy gets 3, the other gets one.

Even if it goes 51/49 in the state that has 4 votes, the victor gets 3.

This insures that there is a winner in each state, and it also insures that each voter gets a reasonable chance at fair representation.

Just a spur of the momet idea.

KC Jones
11-02-2004, 11:09 AM
I'd prefer to see a voting method that allows for ranking candidates to achieve a true consensus majority. A method like condorcet voting http://www.electionmethods.org/Condorcet.htm. Of course it would break the backs of the two party stranglehold and lead to more competition. :thumb:

Calcountry
11-02-2004, 11:10 AM
So the opinion of 100,000 Alaskans (or whatever) has exactly the same weight as 40 million Californians? err....no.

That's moving us further away from being a Democracy than even the Founding Fathers had us.
I agree with Amnorix. The only way to get rid of the EC is to ammend the constitution, won't happen because states like Nevada would be completely ignored in a popular vote.

As archaic as the system is, it is the best representation in a federal election.

Its like 50 football games. When you win against the #1 team, (California) you should get more BCS points.

BIG_DADDY
11-02-2004, 11:11 AM
I say break up the EC votes within a state to match the voting ratios as close as possible, with a victor in a state always receiving at least one more vote than the second place guy.

State has 5 votes, and it breaks 60/40, then one candidate gets 3 votes, the other gets two.

If a state has 4 votes, and it's a 60/40 split, then one guy gets 3, the other gets one.

Even if it goes 51/49 in the state that has 4 votes, the victor gets 3.

This insures that there is a winner in each state, and it also insures that each voter gets a reasonable chance at fair representation.

Just a spur of the momet idea.

It should be that way anyway.

KC Jones
11-02-2004, 11:15 AM
It should be that way anyway.

Technically it should be up to the states to dictate how electoral votes are to be cast. I too favor electoral collegians being split according to their states percentages. Of course it would be difficult to exactly match the ratio.

htismaqe
11-02-2004, 11:56 AM
Technically it should be up to the states to dictate how electoral votes are to be cast. I too favor electoral collegians being split according to their states percentages. Of course it would be difficult to exactly match the ratio.

Even inexact ratios would be better than today, where a candidate can win California by a fraction of 1% and get 55 electoral votes.

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 01:00 PM
So the opinion of 100,000 Alaskans (or whatever) has exactly the same weight as 40 million Californians? err....no.

That's moving us further away from being a Democracy than even the Founding Fathers had us.
They didn't have us as a Democracy, they had us as a Republic

Boozer
11-02-2004, 01:04 PM
I agree with Amnorix. The only way to get rid of the EC is to ammend the constitution, won't happen because states like Nevada would be completely ignored in a popular vote.

As archaic as the system is, it is the best representation in a federal election.

Its like 50 football games. When you win against the #1 team, (California) you should get more BCS points.

Actually, fast growing states (such as Nevada) are the most penalized by the Electoral College, due to the inevitable lag between population growth and reapportionment.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2004, 01:05 PM
The only thing I would do to the EC is make the vote count by district and not by state.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2004, 01:07 PM
I say break up the EC votes within a state to match the voting ratios as close as possible, with a victor in a state always receiving at least one more vote than the second place guy.

State has 5 votes, and it breaks 60/40, then one candidate gets 3 votes, the other gets two.

If a state has 4 votes, and it's a 60/40 split, then one guy gets 3, the other gets one.

Even if it goes 51/49 in the state that has 4 votes, the victor gets 3.

This insures that there is a winner in each state, and it also insures that each voter gets a reasonable chance at fair representation.

Just a spur of the momet idea.

Ahhh yeah...just do it by district. That's how one fo the New England states do it.

patteeu
11-02-2004, 01:46 PM
How about this as an alternative: Whoever wins the most states wins the election? If tied, it goes to the House.

My wife asked this last night. She's not political at all, and she asked my opinion.

Opinions? It sure looks like it would favor Republicans, but what about the basic theory behind it?

I think this would lead large population states to break apart into multiple smaller population states. California would become Norcal, The Peoples State of San Francisco, Cencal, Socal, Mexicali, New California and Los Angeles for example.

htismaqe
11-02-2004, 02:03 PM
I think this would lead large population states to break apart into multiple smaller population states. California would become Norcal, The Peoples State of San Francisco, Cencal, Socal, Mexicali, New California and Los Angeles for example.

I've heard several Californians wish for exactly such an arrangement. Maybe not to such an extreme, but a separate California nonetheless...

Calcountry
11-02-2004, 02:59 PM
Technically it should be up to the states to dictate how electoral votes are to be cast. I too favor electoral collegians being split according to their states percentages. Of course it would be difficult to exactly match the ratio.
I doubt that the California legislature would do that right now. The Democrats control the legislature and they WANT to give ALL of Californias electors to, umm, a Democrat.

Do you see why it is winner take all????

KCWolfman
11-02-2004, 03:15 PM
The only thing I would do to the EC is make the vote count by district and not by state.
Gerrymandering is a problem now, you don't expect it to worsen with that carrot being offered?