The need to reconsider the Electoral College (and it has nothing to do with Trump)

Kacper said:
The solution is to expand the number of seats in the house, the number of electors in the EC will follow. There is no reason to end the EC.
Click to expand...

Your solution would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes, or make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate

Pragmatically, the National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

NationalPopularVote
 
archives said:
"Demographic trends also are straining the American model. Because of the way the Electoral College works, two of the past three presidents first won office while losing the popular vote. And David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-1511193763



Currently, the State of Wyoming has more say in electing a President then the Buffalo, New York metro area which is twice the size of Wyoming in population

Down the road it appears we will not be the representative democracy that the Founding Fathers has imagined
Click to expand...

If it had nothing to do with Trump, why the need to mention it?
 
evince said:
only if its the blood of traitors like the current republican party who cheats Americans out of their rights to vote so that republicans can manage to win elections

they cheat democracy and you support them
Click to expand...

I support the constitution, period. If you have a complaint about what I support, maybe it's YOU who should be looking at what it is you want.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I support the constitution, period. If you have a complaint about what I support, maybe it's YOU who should be looking at what it is you want.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency
 
"If it had nothing to do with Trump, why the need to mention it?" CFM #123
Click to expand...
Not an insensible question, even if the answer is rather obvious.
Many rational persons (including some that post in these fora I should hope) see the world through an Ockham's Razor-colored lens.

U.S. President Trump is the most recent U.S. president, and the only currently serving U.S. president, that won the office, not because of winning the vote, but because of losing the vote, but winning the electoral college swindle.

So in context the topic might seem to be about the current PERSON holding the office.
"If it had nothing to do with Trump, why the need to mention it?" CFM #123
Click to expand...
To remind thread participants that the topic is not about a person, but about the underlying principle.
Thus, it's a topic equally worthy of discussion, even if the current U.S. president were named Hillary Clinton.

Got it?
 
toto said:
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency
Click to expand...

People read whatever they want in the constitution, so it doesn't matter if it says it or not. The Muslim ban was unconstitutional, but watch how much some of the same people defend it.
 
toto said:
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency
Click to expand...

Art 2, Sec 1, Clause 3.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Click to expand...

so unless you AMEND the constitution, there it is
 
archives said:
Matter of semantics, you can legally change what we now define as the Electoral College without going thru an Amendment process, first step would be the allocation of electors within a State thereby eliminating the winner take all method
Click to expand...

California is free to do that now and doesn't........you can't mandate it at the federal law without a change in the constitution.....
 
toto said:
The census bureau is constitutionally mandated to complete a nationwide head count of all residents.

The current system gives "illegal immigrants" a 10 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the Democrats...because they tend to live in safe Democratic states.

An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.
Click to expand...

but it would be easier and smarter to simply not count people who cannot vote in calculating the importance of votes.....
 
toto said:
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency
Click to expand...

no, but the constitution says the states shall decide, so there IS something in the Constitution which prevent the federal government from making that decision......
 
toto said:
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency
Click to expand...

Great, let's do this thing. Article 5 convention of states. Bring it.
 
Thumper said:
Like I said. I did not agree with the decision to go there. Even though I spent so much time going to places I didn't believe we should be, I was able to see past the rhetoric of the Bush lied crap.

Did ya notice how both of you made no attempt to refute anything I said?

As for how we can get actual represntation? Get the government out of the business of business and make it so politician can not be a career choice.

People are greedy. Even the most giving of us will still look for a way to gain the most with the least possible effort.
Click to expand...
Meh...Bush either misled this nation about Iraq or he was incompetent. I view the later as being worse than the former.
 
toto said:
With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans was finished for the presidential election

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

15% of the U.S. population lives in the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX)

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.

Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years has been skewed to battleground states
Click to expand...
Good points....but I live in a battle ground State so I'm not bitching....other than we need to build a wall on the north side of the Ohio River to keep A.A. (Appalachian Americans) from Immigrating to our State!
 
This is for all the complainers that are convinced that Hillary would have won, if the EC votes had been applied proportionally in every state.

I first posted this back on 12/23/16 ( New voting system ) and the JPP liberals refused to acknowledge that Hillary would have still lost; because they FEEL that the US should just go to a direct Democracy vote, seeing as how this way California and NY would just choose every President.

USFREEDOM911 said:
With all the "discussions" occurring regarding the Electoral College and the Popular Vote, I believe I have found the solution; because I don't see our Federal elections ever being decided by the "popular vote".

What I have done is broken this last election down by using what percentage of the "popular vote" to allocate how many Electoral College votes a candidate will receive.

Below is my example and if some doesn't understand the method, please ask.

Each state has a color designation as to who won that state, this year.
After each state, is the number of Electoral votes those states have.
Under that, it shows the candidate, the percentage of votes they received, then the percentage of electoral votes that number would have given them, and finally the number of electoral votes that would have been allocated.
Once the number of electoral votes for that state have been reached, the allocation ends.

Alabama - 9
Trump 62.9 / (5.6) 6
Clinton 34.6 / (3.114) 3

Alaska - 3
Trump 52.9 / (1.6) 2
Clinton 37.7 / (1.131) 1

Arizona - 11
Trump 49.5 / (5.445) 5
Clinton 45.4 / (4.994) 5
Johnson 3.9 / (0.429) 1

Arkansas - 6
Trump 60.4 / (3.624) 4
Clinton 33.8 / (2.028) 2

California - 55
Clinton 61.6 / (33.88) 34
Trump 32.8 / (18.04) 18
Johnson 3.4 / (1.87) 2
Stein 1.8 / (0.55) 1

Colorado - 9
Clinton 47.2 / (4,248) 4
Trump 44.4 / (3.996) 4
Johnson 5.0 / (0.45) 1

Connecticut - 7
Clinton 54.5 / (3.815) 4
Trump 41.2 / (2.884) 3

Delaware - 3
Clinton 53.4 / (1.602) 2
Trump 41.9 / (1.257) 1

District of Columbia - 3
Clinton 92.8 / (2.784) 3
Trump 4.1 / (0.123) 0

Florida - 29
Trump 49.1 / (14.239) 14
Clinton 47.8 / (13.862) 14
Johnson 2.2 / (0.638) 1

Georgia - 16
Trump 51.3 / (8.208) 8
Clinton 45.6 / (7.296) 7
Johnson 3.1 / (0.496) 1

Hawaii - 4
Clinton 62.3 / (2.492) 2
Trump 30.1 / (1.204) 1
Johnson 3.7 / (0.148) 1

Idaho - 4
Trump 59.2 / (2.368) 2
Clinton 27.6 / (1.104) 1
McMullin 6.8 / (0.272) 1

Illinois - 20
Clinton 55.4 / (11.08) 11
Trump 39.4 / (7.88) 8
Johnson 3.8 / (0.76) 1

Indiana - 11
Trump 57.2 / (6.292) 6
Clinton 37.9 / (4.169) 4
Johnson 4.9 / (0.539) 1

Iowa - 6
Trump 51.8 / (3.108) 3
Clinton 42.2 / (2.532) 3

Kansas - 6
Trump 57.2 / (3.432) 3
Clinton 36.2 / (2.172) 2
Johnson 4.7 / (0.282) 1

Kentucky - 8
Trump 62.5 / (5.0) 5
Clinton 32.7 / (2.616) 3

Louisiana - 8
Trump 58.1 / (4.648) 5
Clinton 38.4 / (3.072) 3

Maine - 4
Clinton 47.9 / (1.916) 2
Trump 45.2 / (1.808) 2

Maryland - 10
Clinton 60.5 / (6.05) 6
Trump 35.3 / (3.53) 4

Massachusetts - 11
Clinton 60.8 / (6.688) 7
Trump 33.5 / (3.685) 4

Michigan - 16
Trump 47.6 / (7.616) 8
Clinton 47.3 / 7.568) 8

Minnesota - 10
Clinton 46.9 / (4.69) 5
Trump 45.4 / (4.54) 5

Mississippi - 6
Trump 58.3 / (3.498) 3
Clinton 39.7 / 2.383) 2
Johnson 1.2 / (0.072) 1

Missouri - 10
Trump 57.1 / (5.71) 6
Clinton 38.0 / (3.8) 4

Montana - 3
Trump 56.5 / (1.695) 2
Clinton 36.0 / (1.08) 1

Nebraska - 5
Trump 60.3 / (3.015) 3
Clinton 34.0 / (1.7) 2

Nevada - 6
Clinton 47.9 / (2.874) 3
Trump 45.5 / (2.73) 3

New Hampshire - 4
Clinton 47.6 / (1.904) 2
Trump 47.2 / (1.888) 2

New Jersey - 14
Clinton 55.0 / (7.70) 8
Trump 41.8 / (5.852) 6

New Mexico - 5
Clinton 48.3 / (2.415) 2
Trump 40.0 / (2.00) 2
Johnson 9.3 / (0.465) 1

New York - 29
Clinton 58.8 / (17.052) 17
Trump 37.5 / (10.875) 11
Johnson 2.3 / (0.667) 1

North Carolina - 15
Trump 50.5 / (7.575) 8
Clinton 46.7 / (7.005) 7

North Dakota - 3
Trump 64.1 / (1.923) 2
Clinton 27.8 / (0.834) 1

Ohio - 18
Trump 52.1 / (9,378) 9
Clinton 43.5 / (7.83) 8
Johnson 3.2 / (0.576) 1

Oklahoma - 7
Trump 65.3 / (4.571) 5
Clinton 28.9 / (2.023) 2

Oregon - 7
Clinton 51.7 / (3.619) 4
Trump 41.1 / (2.877) 3

Pennsylvania - 20
Trump 48.8 / (9.76) 10
Clinton 47.6 / (9.52) 10

Rhode Island - 4
Clinton 55.4 / (2.216) 2
Trump 39.8 / (1.592) 2

South Carolina - 9
Trump 54.9 / (4.941) 5
Clinton 40.8 / (3.672) 4

South Dakota - 3
Trump 61.5 / (1.845) 2
Clinton 31.7 / (0.0951) 1

Tennessee - 11
Trump 61.1 / (6.721) 7
Clinton 34.9 / (3.839) 4

Texas - 38
Trump 52.6 / (19.988) 20
Clinton 43.4 / (16.492) 16
Johnson 3.2 / (1.216) 1
Stein 0.8 / 0.304) 1

Utah - 6
Trump 45.9 / (2.754) 3
Clinton 27.8 / 1.668) 2
McMullin 21.0 / (1.26) 1

Vermont - 3
Clinton 61.1 / (1.833) 2
Trump 32.6 / (0.978) 1

Virginia - 13
Clinton 49.9 / (6.487) 6
Trump 45.0 / (5.85) 6
Johnson 3.0 / (0.39) 1

Washington - 12
Clinton 54.4 / (6.528) 7
Trump 38.2 / (4.584) 5

West Virginia - 5
Trump 68.7 / (3.435) 3
Clinton 26.5 / (1.325) 1
Johnson 3.2 / (0.16) 1

Wisconsin - 10
Trump 47.9 / (4.79) 5
Clinton 46.9 / 4.69) 5

Wyoming - 3
Trump 70.1 / (2.103) 2
Clinton 22.5 / 0.675) 1


Adding all of this up, it gives us the following totals:
Trump / 268
Clinton / 250
Third party(s) / 20

This of course would need to have the 270 number eliminated or use the congressional method that is already prescribed, when one candidate doesn't reach the 270 number.
Click to expand...

By the way, not one person was able to refute my figures and it also doesn't address illegal votes or illegals voting.

:dealwithit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top