uscitizen
Villified User
Umm some believe we were originally created to worship god.
Nothing stays the same , we must adapt.
The electoral college
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
Umm some believe we were originally created to worship god.
Nothing stays the same , we must adapt.
Battleborne
Terminator
WC Grouch
New member
We're now in the situation that Jefferson warned us about:
"When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." ...Thomas Jefferson (1821)
WC Grouch
New member
The socialist movement of the 1890s convinced the people that we're "one nation, indivisible" and that is the exact opposite of a free republic.
uscitizen
Villified User
According to waters posting on Strawman arguments...I believe this qualifies!
so ? Look who is talking
Which was provided for, it is called Amendments. I haven't suggested we stop talking about it, just that I wouldn't support it. I think it is a better system than allowing small portions of the nation select what is good for the rest of the nation.
Battleborne
Terminator
That was my point..........
water only calls Cons strawmen...just pointed out the hypocrisy...
so ? Look who is talking
water only calls Cons strawmen...just pointed out the hypocrisy...
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
and I would definitely disagree.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Look up it up in the encyclopaedia brittanica, you fucking idiot. The Nebraska-Maine method is not proportional. If the state legislatures labelled the method proportional then they have no idea what the term means, just like you don't. And I think you're just making it up that you've seen the laws. Just admit it - you took two completely different methods and confused the names.
Just look up any electoral map of Maine since the 70's since the method was passed - all the electoral votes have always gone towards one person.
You're such an idiot. I don't see why you're being such a bitch about something you know you're wrong about.
The proportional plan passed the senate in the 50's, it didn't pass the house. Why was that? Because at-large representation gives larger states a bigger advantage than even the popular vote does.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
That's really more of a nationalist mottow, and it's been echoed throughout the centuries by a lot of people.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
That's what we have now. Two or three big states elect the president. You may as well not even vote, Damo.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Howso? Congressional districts aren't really a very accurate representation of the population at large... even if they aren't specifically gerrymandered.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm
Congressional District (Maine-Nebraska) Method:
This method divides electoral votes by district, allocating one vote to each district and using the remaining two as a bonus for the statewide popular vote winner. This method of distribution has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has had a statewide winner that has not swept all of the Congressional districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever spilt its electoral votes.
This system does not address the disproportional aspects of the Electoral College. Using Congressional districts to determine each elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn, already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political parties. For this reason, basing electoral vote allocation on Congressional districts as well would raise the stakes of redistricting considerably and make gerrymandering even more tempting. (For more information see our page on the controversial process of redistricting).
Also, while the current system causes the candidates to pay the most attention to just a handful of states, the Congressional District method would actually make their attention even more tunneled. There are normally anywhere from 10-20 competitive swing states in any given election. However, with this method, candidates would rather shift their focuses to competitive districts, the number of which would be small enough to further reduce the reach of presidential campaigns, promises and attention.
Although we can see how this method might benefit some states individually, it is actually quite detrimental on a national scale. Because the spoiler dynamic, gerrymandering and very few competitive districts would be so decisive in the outcome of an election using the Congressional District format, FairVote does not support this reform method.
Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes :
This system has been proposed with a number of variations, most recently in Colorado. As a popular alternative, it splits each state’s electoral votes in accordance with their popular vote percentages. This way, a candidate who come in second place in a state with 45% of the popular vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes from that state, instead of 0%.
This system would greatly increase voter turnout and the representation of all parties in a state. It would also encourage candidates to campaign in all states rather than just those that are competitive. Though the majority, as always, would come out on top in each state, the minority's supporters would not be effectively contributing to their candidate's defeat when the whole of their state's electoral votes go a candidate they do not support.
One problem with this system is the question of how to allocate electors proportionally. Percentages will seldom be equal to a whole elector after being proportioned, and a single elector could not be evenly divided among two or more candidates. Some suggest that one way to patch this problem of uneven electors would be to increase the number of electoral votes by a factor of 10 or 100 or more to reduce the margin of error. Others suggest rounding to whole votes, tenth votes, and a whole variety of decimal places beyond this. However, each of these, though reducing the amount of error, would still permit error and not succeed as thoroughly in making each vote count equally.
This would be difficult to pass on a nationwide basis and would most likely have to pass state-by-state. During this process, or even in the end if some states do not adopt the process, one party might gain an unfair advantage. This could happen if some states were dividing up their electoral votes while others were still giving all of their votes to the majority party. For instance, imagine California switching to a proportional allocation while Texas sticks with winner-take-all.
FairVote supports this method of reform, though it is not our preferred choice. If the electoral votes for each state were proportioned exactly (which would necessitate fractional electoral votes and/or electors), this system would directly imitate the popular vote. However, we still have in mind that giving states different numbers of electoral votes in the first place provides imbalance and misrepresentation. Read a well-informed and descriptive article of proportional allocation here.
Congressional District (Maine-Nebraska) Method:
This method divides electoral votes by district, allocating one vote to each district and using the remaining two as a bonus for the statewide popular vote winner. This method of distribution has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has had a statewide winner that has not swept all of the Congressional districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever spilt its electoral votes.
This system does not address the disproportional aspects of the Electoral College. Using Congressional districts to determine each elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn, already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political parties. For this reason, basing electoral vote allocation on Congressional districts as well would raise the stakes of redistricting considerably and make gerrymandering even more tempting. (For more information see our page on the controversial process of redistricting).
Also, while the current system causes the candidates to pay the most attention to just a handful of states, the Congressional District method would actually make their attention even more tunneled. There are normally anywhere from 10-20 competitive swing states in any given election. However, with this method, candidates would rather shift their focuses to competitive districts, the number of which would be small enough to further reduce the reach of presidential campaigns, promises and attention.
Although we can see how this method might benefit some states individually, it is actually quite detrimental on a national scale. Because the spoiler dynamic, gerrymandering and very few competitive districts would be so decisive in the outcome of an election using the Congressional District format, FairVote does not support this reform method.
Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes :
This system has been proposed with a number of variations, most recently in Colorado. As a popular alternative, it splits each state’s electoral votes in accordance with their popular vote percentages. This way, a candidate who come in second place in a state with 45% of the popular vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes from that state, instead of 0%.
This system would greatly increase voter turnout and the representation of all parties in a state. It would also encourage candidates to campaign in all states rather than just those that are competitive. Though the majority, as always, would come out on top in each state, the minority's supporters would not be effectively contributing to their candidate's defeat when the whole of their state's electoral votes go a candidate they do not support.
One problem with this system is the question of how to allocate electors proportionally. Percentages will seldom be equal to a whole elector after being proportioned, and a single elector could not be evenly divided among two or more candidates. Some suggest that one way to patch this problem of uneven electors would be to increase the number of electoral votes by a factor of 10 or 100 or more to reduce the margin of error. Others suggest rounding to whole votes, tenth votes, and a whole variety of decimal places beyond this. However, each of these, though reducing the amount of error, would still permit error and not succeed as thoroughly in making each vote count equally.
This would be difficult to pass on a nationwide basis and would most likely have to pass state-by-state. During this process, or even in the end if some states do not adopt the process, one party might gain an unfair advantage. This could happen if some states were dividing up their electoral votes while others were still giving all of their votes to the majority party. For instance, imagine California switching to a proportional allocation while Texas sticks with winner-take-all.
FairVote supports this method of reform, though it is not our preferred choice. If the electoral votes for each state were proportioned exactly (which would necessitate fractional electoral votes and/or electors), this system would directly imitate the popular vote. However, we still have in mind that giving states different numbers of electoral votes in the first place provides imbalance and misrepresentation. Read a well-informed and descriptive article of proportional allocation here.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Search the results for maine and nebraska yourself, WC. They've never split their electoral vote. All the congressional districts have always returned a majority towards the same person. That's not proportional.
Search the results for maine and nebraska yourself, WC. They've never split their electoral vote. All the congressional districts have always returned a majority towards the same person. That's not proportional.
Last edited:
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
OK, My second choice--------that's still better than the present system
-----