A possible suggestion for a Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, New York Prsditential vote pact.

[CowboyTed]

I have looked at
(Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina) v New York Presidential vote.

Added together each has 29 votes.

On the 2016 and 2020 Presidential the three republican states voted Red as much as New York voted Blue...

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Why? This would mean the four states above would not be taken for granted. Presidential candidates would have to campaign there. It wouldn't make them swing states but at present they have zero influence in the race, zero influence means you get nothing.

I think the winners here would be the voters (not by much but better than zero which they have today).

Just a thought, this is as non partisan as it gets, so could you not descend into a mudslinging match. There are advantages and disadvantages but neither are Red v Blue.

 

[SeaMajor7]

You should be more concerned with your own country that is being overrun by foreigners....

 

[Cellblock2429]

I have looked at
(Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina) v New York Presidential vote.

Added together each has 29 votes.

On the 2016 and 2020 Presidential the three republican states voted Red as much as New York voted Blue...

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Why? This would mean the four states above would not be taken for granted. Presidential candidates would have to campaign there. It wouldn't make them swing states but at present they have zero influence in the race, zero influence means you get nothing.

I think the winners here would be the voters (not by much but better than zero which they have today).

Just a thought, this is as non partisan as it gets, so could you not descend into a mudslinging match. There are advantages and disadvantages but neither are Red v Blue.

/----/ Am I the only one confused by this thread and the polling questions?

 

[candycorn]

/----/ Am I the only one confused by this thread and the polling questions?

yes

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have looked at
(Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina) v New York Presidential vote.

Added together each has 29 votes.

On the 2016 and 2020 Presidential the three republican states voted Red as much as New York voted Blue...

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Why? This would mean the four states above would not be taken for granted. Presidential candidates would have to campaign there. It wouldn't make them swing states but at present they have zero influence in the race, zero influence means you get nothing.

I think the winners here would be the voters (not by much but better than zero which they have today).

Just a thought, this is as non partisan as it gets, so could you not descend into a mudslinging match. There are advantages and disadvantages but neither are Red v Blue.

It is a good start. Moving away from the "winner take all" approach that 48 of the 50 states use would increase voter turn out all across the nation.

As it is now, the votes in 2/3 of the states are basically meaningless and do not really do a good job of representing the state.

Take my state of Ill for example. It always goes Blue, normally by at least 2 million votes or more.

Yet, if you look at the state, most of it is "red".

If Illinois awarded EC votes based on congressional districts instead of winner take all, Trump would have gotten 6 EC votes from the state out of the 20. And it gives those in those area more of a reason to come out and vote.

 

[candycorn]

I have looked at
(Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina) v New York Presidential vote.

Added together each has 29 votes.

On the 2016 and 2020 Presidential the three republican states voted Red as much as New York voted Blue...

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Why? This would mean the four states above would not be taken for granted. Presidential candidates would have to campaign there. It wouldn't make them swing states but at present they have zero influence in the race, zero influence means you get nothing.

I think the winners here would be the voters (not by much but better than zero which they have today).

Just a thought, this is as non partisan as it gets, so could you not descend into a mudslinging match. There are advantages and disadvantages but neither are Red v Blue.

I think there is a federal law that prohibits such collaborations. Meaning that Tennessee's electors have to reflect the will of the people of Tennessee. If a candidate were to get the plurality of the votes of Tennessee Voters, they would have to award some or all of the electors to the candidate who got that plurality. They could change their state constitution to what Nebraska and Maine have to where votes are awarded by congressional district. The current government of Tennessee would never...and I mean EVER allow such a thing. Why would they? Currently it's a safe GOP state. Why allow the 9th district (Memphis) to push an electoral vote over to the Democrat's side? So they are happy being ignored by the blob and others.

The TN-1st is an interesting seat. Some freedom caucus fascist Barbie has it currently. Her husband got locked up for 4 years for selling Chinese drugs under a different label and the moment he got out of the clink he was found electioneering for his punk son's campaign bid at the state level.

 

[SweetSue92]

I have looked at
(Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina) v New York Presidential vote.

Added together each has 29 votes.

On the 2016 and 2020 Presidential the three republican states voted Red as much as New York voted Blue...

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Why? This would mean the four states above would not be taken for granted. Presidential candidates would have to campaign there. It wouldn't make them swing states but at present they have zero influence in the race, zero influence means you get nothing.

I think the winners here would be the voters (not by much but better than zero which they have today).

Just a thought, this is as non partisan as it gets, so could you not descend into a mudslinging match. There are advantages and disadvantages but neither are Red v Blue.

You're not even American so why do you care?

 

[rightwinger]

Any state dropping winner take all in the election makes themselves irrelevant

Instead of your state making 10-20 EVs, popular vote would give the winner 2

 

[CowboyTed]

/----/ Am I the only one confused by this thread and the polling questions?

Fair call..

I am saying that you like the idea in principle but think the states I suggested are wrong...

The next option is probably the one I needed to explain : A start but I would we want ranked voting as well (be reasonable and explain)
This would allow voters to vote by preference but the votes could be brought down to the top two by using the voters preference. So instead of votes been given to a third party and that could waste your vote, you can vote for who you like knowing that you preference vote would goto the viable candidate (this allows third/fourth parties to win votes)...

I explained that really badly, but because electoral votes can go to more than one party we could leverage preference voting..

 

[CowboyTed]

You should be more concerned with your own country that is being overrun by foreigners....

Aren't we being a bit bitter today...

I am living in Ireland and it isn't being overrun by foreigners... Actually most people in Ireland want the Polish to come back..

 

[CowboyTed]

It is a good start. Moving away from the "winner take all" approach that 48 of the 50 states use would increase voter turn out all across the nation.

As it is now, the votes in 2/3 of the states are basically meaningless and do not really do a good job of representing the state.

Take my state of Ill for example. It always goes Blue, normally by at least 2 million votes or more.

Yet, if you look at the state, most of it is "red".

View attachment 996530

If Illinois awarded EC votes based on congressional districts instead of winner take all, Trump would have gotten 6 EC votes from the state out of the 20. And it gives those in those area more of a reason to come out and vote.

That was my thinking... Because the four states above would get attention others would get concerned/jealous and find there own sister state(s)..

 

[Polishprince]

I have looked at
(Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina) v New York Presidential vote.

Added together each has 29 votes.

On the 2016 and 2020 Presidential the three republican states voted Red as much as New York voted Blue...

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Why? This would mean the four states above would not be taken for granted. Presidential candidates would have to campaign there. It wouldn't make them swing states but at present they have zero influence in the race, zero influence means you get nothing.

I think the winners here would be the voters (not by much but better than zero which they have today).

Just a thought, this is as non partisan as it gets, so could you not descend into a mudslinging match. There are advantages and disadvantages but neither are Red v Blue.

The people of those great states like President Trump.

Why would they want to surrender any of their electoral votes to the enemy?

 

[CowboyTed]

I think there is a federal law that prohibits such collaborations. Meaning that Tennessee's electors have to reflect the will of the people of Tennessee. If a candidate were to get the plurality of the votes of Tennessee Voters, they would have to award some or all of the electors to the candidate who got that plurality. They could change their state constitution to what Nebraska and Maine have to where votes are awarded by congressional district. The current government of Tennessee would never...and I mean EVER allow such a thing. Why would they? Currently it's a safe GOP state. Why allow the 9th district (Memphis) to push an electoral vote over to the Democrat's side? So they are happy being ignored by the blob and others.

The TN-1st is an interesting seat. Some freedom caucus fascist Barbie has it currently. Her husband got locked up for 4 years for selling Chinese drugs under a different label and the moment he got out of the clink he was found electioneering for his punk son's campaign bid at the state level.

Very good point... Let me break it down...

As I understand it a state can award votes to electoral college on anyway as long as it is democratic in nature. I am thinking that is same idea that covers this idea:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For the Tennessee Government, this is Presidential only, this is about not about giving Tennessee votes to Democrats but getting Republican votes from New Yorkers... The main winner here is Tennessee, now your vote matters, politicians have to promise you something for your vote., at the moment they need to do jackshit because both sides already know how the state is going. No politician has to work for your vote.

Congressional voting, I would be pushing multi-seat preference voting but that is dead at the moment because turkeys don't vote for thanksgiving..

 

[CowboyTed]

Any state dropping winner take all in the election makes themselves irrelevant

Instead of your state making 10-20 EVs, popular vote would give the winner 2

If you are a swing state, totally agree...

But the ones I mentioned are sure things in politics, only reason to goto them in the Presidential race is to get money...

2 EVs are better than nothing...

 

[CowboyTed]

The people of those great states like President Trump.

Why would they want to surrender any of their electoral votes to the enemy?

That is why there is New York on the other side...

By doing this they come relevant (not like a Swing State) if only in a smaller way...

Now a Democrat and Republican has to goto Alabama and New York to win as much votes as possible..

Effectively there is no advantage from a Red v Blue aspect, Trump would get 11 votes in the last election from New York...

If you stop seeing everything no Trump as the enemy , you can see that being represented is the best way to get things done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about a voting pact for Presidential Elections. Instead of winner takes all they take a share the electoral vote as corresponds to the share of vote they take in each state (rounding would apply).

Violates the constitution.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The intent and effect of this pact is to directly affect the outcome of a Presidential election and therefor stands or side the 'allowed' precedents set by the SCotUS.
.

 

[Polishprince]

If the election was close, New York would renege on the pact, if they knew they could change the results in their favor. These kinds of "pacts" are unenforceable.

 

[alang1216]

Any state dropping winner take all in the election makes themselves irrelevant

Instead of your state making 10-20 EVs, popular vote would give the winner 2

But if every state gave a proportional share of their total EC votes based on their popular vote, every state would be relevant, unlike the situation today.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But if every state gave a proportional share of their total EC votes based on their popular vote, every state would be relevant, unlike the situation today.

Do you think CA NY and IL will ever agree to giving any of their EVs to a Republican?

 

[alang1216]

Do you think CA NY and IL will ever agree to giving any of their EVs to a Republican?

If TX, FL, and all the other Red states agreed, why not?