It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

[ShootSpeeders]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the constitution is founded on states rights and even federal elections have to be held at the state level. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The electoral college is just an antiquated leftover from the days of yore when the states still saw themselves as little countries.

exactly. As long as we believe in states rights, we have to have something like an electoral college.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?

For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?

.

That's a good point but if the public demanded it, it could be done by the individual states. Most people have never thought of this.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The popular vote is the better idea, then no one can claim their vote doesn't count.

You don't understand the concept of states rights. You've been brainwashed into thinking the federal govt is above the states just like the states are above counties. The FF did NOT think like that. They thought of the federal govt as existing alongside the states and a little below them, Washington and jefferson considered themselves virginians first and americans second just like people in france think of themselves as frenchmen first and europeans second.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

You got a better idea? What makes you so certain there would be gerrymandering. ? THINK

The popular vote is the better idea, then no one can claim their vote doesn't count.

Except that the states were considered meaningful in this process. Preserving their "identities" to a certain extent is the reason we have the electoral college.

In theory you can still win the presidency with 33.4% of the popular vote.

I like that.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

The founders could not conceive of Oregon or cotton candy or a microwave. A good idea in1789 does not necessarily make for a good idea in2016.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

You don't understand. It's not about democracy. It's about states rights. Something the FF took for granted.

 

[hazlnut]

This is from 2015 but it's a great article. Under our present winner-take-all system, lots of voters know their vote doesn't matter.

It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

feb 3 2015 The custom in the United States today is for Electoral College (EC) votes to be awarded state-by-state on a winner-take-all basis. A candidate who wins the popular vote in an individual state gets every one of its electoral votes.

Although we are accustomed to thinking this is the only way it can be done, the method of awarding electoral votes is a matter for each state to decide. For example, two states (Nebraska and Maine) award electoral college votes by congressional district rather than by statewide popular vote. There is no reason for every other state in the nation not to follow suit.

Voters outside major population centers today are virtually disenfranchised by the current arrangement. Voters in eastern Washington, for instance, know full well that the outcome of the electoral college vote will be determined by the vote in the major population centers of Seattle and King County. They know their vote, while it will be counted, is largely symbolic.

But if EC votes are awarded by congressional district, suddenly voters in eastern Washington, whose districts lie wholly outside the state’s urban centers, have a voice and a vote that counts.

In California, Romney would have won 13 of the state’s 55 electoral votes, which is certainly better than a shutout and has the additional and more important advantage of letting voters in those 13 congressional districts know that their vote matters as much as the vote of folks in San Francisco and L.A. Romney would have won three of New York’s 29 electoral votes, six out of Illinois’ 20, and 13 out of Florida’s 29.

Every vote matters.

Fuck that too much gerrymandering.

 

[konradv]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

They were men, not gods. We're not bound by what they thought. The Constitution can be amended.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

They were men, not gods. We're not bound by what they thought. The Constitution can be amended.

The Founding Fathers! Slave holders seeking freedom!

 

[Syriusly]

And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?

For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?

.

That's a good point but if the public demanded it, it could be done by the individual states. Most people have never thought of this.

The people are not demanding it though.

I have watched the suggestion happen here in California- yes a contingent from the GOP made this suggestion to California- and California- correctly pointed out why should we dilute our votes, while Texas remains solidly GOP- winner take all.

This never benefits the majority in power- only the minority.

Personally, I would be fine with California passing a proportional law, but that only went into effect after two GOP majority states voted in such a law for themselves.

 

[Seawytch]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

But do you know WHY?

 

[bripat9643]

This is from 2015 but it's a great article. Under our present winner-take-all system, lots of voters know their vote doesn't matter.

It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

feb 3 2015 The custom in the United States today is for Electoral College (EC) votes to be awarded state-by-state on a winner-take-all basis. A candidate who wins the popular vote in an individual state gets every one of its electoral votes.

Although we are accustomed to thinking this is the only way it can be done, the method of awarding electoral votes is a matter for each state to decide. For example, two states (Nebraska and Maine) award electoral college votes by congressional district rather than by statewide popular vote. There is no reason for every other state in the nation not to follow suit.

Voters outside major population centers today are virtually disenfranchised by the current arrangement. Voters in eastern Washington, for instance, know full well that the outcome of the electoral college vote will be determined by the vote in the major population centers of Seattle and King County. They know their vote, while it will be counted, is largely symbolic.

But if EC votes are awarded by congressional district, suddenly voters in eastern Washington, whose districts lie wholly outside the state’s urban centers, have a voice and a vote that counts.

In California, Romney would have won 13 of the state’s 55 electoral votes, which is certainly better than a shutout and has the additional and more important advantage of letting voters in those 13 congressional districts know that their vote matters as much as the vote of folks in San Francisco and L.A. Romney would have won three of New York’s 29 electoral votes, six out of Illinois’ 20, and 13 out of Florida’s 29.

You and the author obviously don't understand the purpose of the electoral college.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

You don't understand. It's not about democracy. It's about states rights. Something the FF took for granted.

Well, I take for granted that it's not 1787 anymore.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

They also figured out that the Articles of Confederation were a stupid idea.

 

[AceRothstein]

the problem originates with the idea that the number of electoral votes per state should correspond with the number of congressmen per state, but a legislative district is not the same thing as an administrative district. these are two different functions in a separation of powers. maybe the electoral college would be better if each county of each state had one electoral vote independent of all the other counties and states, that is, avoiding the winner-take-all methods. ohio has 88 counties, that's 88 electoral votes up for grabs, no ''battleground'' status necessary.

This is an even dumber idea than using congressional districts.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You and the author obviously don't understand the purpose of the electoral college.

The FF believed in states rights. That's why they set up the EC.

 

[FA_Q2]

I was wondering when we’d get our first crybaby thread about the EC.

The winning position is that you make it to where the President-elect would have to win both the majority of EV and the plurality of the PV. We can’t get rid of the EC all together because people would only campaign in the large cities. Congressional districts would also be a stupid idea given how the media is dominant over a region. However, in this day and age of being able to tally votes within days if not hours…it makes no sense to ignore the popular vote any longer.

This is an often repeated defense of the EC but I find it unfounded. Right now, the candidates do not spend all their time in the major cities of the battleground states. What makes you think that this suddenly disappears at the national level?

Another point is so what? I don't really care where they spend their time and campaign dollars as long as we are all represented - something that the EC works against.

What you are suggesting is nothing but a cover up on the dated EC system. We need to get rid of it in its entirety.

A major problem with what you are saying as well: what are you suggesting happen when the candidate fails to get the EC vote but manages to garner the PV? Send it to congress? That is worse than what we have now.

 

[FA_Q2]

I was wondering when we’d get our first crybaby thread about the EC.

The winning position is that you make it to where the President-elect would have to win both the majority of EV and the plurality of the PV. We can’t get rid of the EC all together because people would only campaign in the large cities. Congressional districts would also be a stupid idea given how the media is dominant over a region. However, in this day and age of being able to tally votes within days if not hours…it makes no sense to ignore the popular vote any longer.

It's crazy because the EC already favors them. They have multiple states that are just empty land, but still get the minimum 3 EV's even though their population doesn't warrant it.

That does not mean that the EC favors them. They may gain ground in that manner but they lose it when ten million voters in CA get counted for the democrat candidate but would vote for the republican one.

The real loss for both sides really is not counted anyway - it is the number of voters that do not participate because their vote is already decided - those voters in CA and WA that are tallied for democrats have many republicans that do not even bother just as there are many democrats that likely don't bother in TX as they are going to be tallied for the republican. I think there would be some surprising changes to the voter map if we actually started counting popular votes rather than using the EC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

I agree completely.