It's time to reform the electoral college

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by appleisking, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #1
    Why not implement a system where electoral votes are allocated proportionally like in the primaries. That way small margins wouldn't allow a candidate to carry a major state even though he barely won it. A winner take all system is why Bush and Trump won and is highly undemocratic if it doesn't represent the popular vote. I am not saying Trumps win wasn't legitimate and I'm not complaining about this election specifically. He clearly had large pockets of support and the election would've been close either way. I'm just wondering if we couldn't have a more democratic system
     
  2. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    Do you round up or down? Small state with 3 EC votes. Vote split 52-48. How do you allocate?
     
  3. EnderBeta macrumors 6502

    EnderBeta

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2016
    #3
    For the most part the system is fine. You vote for your region. The regions are tallied and then the state votes for the overall winner of the state. Then the nation determines the winner based on the number of votes earned from the states that voted for the candidate.

    The one thing I would suggest is give all states 1 vote and require the winner to get 26 votes or more to win. Then the high population areas won't be able to unjustly get more representation from the commander in chief.
     
  4. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #4
    Just go by popular vote entirely, forget about states and counties. Anything other than popular vote is less democratic.
     
  5. EnderBeta macrumors 6502

    EnderBeta

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2016
    #5
    No way the popular vote should only be used to settle ties. If it was only the popular vote that mattered people in regions that are highly populated would become more important then regions with a lower population. Each state should have equal representation.
     
  6. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #6
    Because Chicago, NY, LA, etc would be picking the president every election cycle. The rural voter gets screwed.
     
  7. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #7
    Worst suggestion of the day.
     
  8. Khalanad75 macrumors 6502

    Khalanad75

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Location:
    land of confusion
    #8
    And how would giving each state 1 vote as you suggested make things fair? It would give states that have less population than some cities in the larger states more of a voice.
     
  9. EnderBeta macrumors 6502

    EnderBeta

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2016
    #9
    How does having the same amount of votes equate to them having a higher level of say in the country? If you mean because they have a higher say per million people in the state then yeah they would but it prevents cities from telling the rural areas what to do.
     
  10. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #10
    We all know how that works with Mike Madigan and his corrupt machine.
     
  11. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #11
    If each state had equal representation, then a US citizen in Wyoming would have 65 times the voting power of a US citizen in California. That's grossly unfair.

    Voting for president has nothing to do with land area. It's about people, not acres.

    You say that "If it was only the popular vote that mattered people in regions that are highly populated would become more important then regions with a lower population." That not true. There is no "winner takes the whole region" in a popular vote system. Regions wouldn't matter at all in popular vote. Only individual US citizen's votes.

    Also, each state having equal representation for presidential election is unconstitutional under Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

    Why do you hate democracy?
     
  12. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #12
    Illinois is a prime example of what would happen.
     
  13. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #13
    I like our representative republic. Where all states receive equal representation. Why do you hate the united states?
     
  14. EnderBeta macrumors 6502

    EnderBeta

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2016
    #14
    I disagree. It's about not letting one state dictate to another state how to live. Who is New York to tell a farmer in Kentucky that they have to handle their live stock in a specific way or be fined? Just because more people live in New York doesn't mean they deserve a larger say of policy that affects other local governments.
     
  15. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #15
    Oh yea? And then what's the house or representatives? And what's the electoral college? Seems to me neither of those are states receiving equal representation.

    I love the US so much I actually had to work and earn becoming a citizen, unlike some others who just inherited it :p
     
  16. EnderBeta macrumors 6502

    EnderBeta

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2016
    #16
    The electoral collage is a compromise of population based and regional based voting. It was the most fair system we could get everyone to agree to. It's not perfect but it is a whole heck of a lot better then bowing to a king and being a peasant. :)
     
  17. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #17
    You seem to be stuck in a region-centric viewpoint and can't see that in a pure popular vote, regions don't matter at all.

    Being in a more densely populated area doesn't matter in a popular vote. New Yorkers wouldn't be able to force anything on people in Kentucky.

    If 30 million New Yorkers vote for option A, 5 million New Yorkers vote for option B, and 30 million Kentuckians vote for option B, then B wins.

    If 30 million New Yorkers vote for option A, 30 million Kentuckians vote for option B, then B wins, and 1 person in Wyoming votes for option B, option B wins.

    Where you are doesn't matter. It's about people.
     
  18. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #18
    I guess your ability to seem correctly is broken, because that is exactly what the electoral college and house is doing. You obviously don't love it if you want to change the foundation.
     
  19. EnderBeta macrumors 6502

    EnderBeta

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2016
    #19
    Why should the Kentucky population be dependent on a segment of New York population to agree with them? Regional small local governments is the way to go. The Federal Government should only serve as our outward face, mediator and bodyguard.
     
  20. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #20
    I agree with this. Every electoral college vote should be up for grabs and not be lumped with the State. With the current system, someone who barely sweeps the Big Four (California, Florida, New York and Texas) have over half the votes they need.

    They do... in the Senate.
     
  21. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #21
    It's a fine system. The OP was asking for something more democratic. I suggested pure popular vote because that is most democratic.

    Anything other than pure popular vote is putting a barrier between the will of the people and the outcome. If you're ok with taking power away from voters and mitigating it, then electoral college is a good compromise.

    But to suggest that popular vote is not democratic is just wrong. Popular vote is the best direct representation, the most democratic, system.
     
  22. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #22
    Jerry mandering should be addressed as well. Probably a big factor in how republicans were able to retain both houses......
     
  23. EnderBeta macrumors 6502

    EnderBeta

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2016
    #23
    I know why he is clambering for a popular vote only. Because Hilary got more votes overall. However by going by the popular vote regions of the country would not have been heard. It allows the cities to dictate too much.
     
  24. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #24
    We're talking about presidents dude. Or are you suggesting Kentucky have it's own president? It already does sort of - the governor. On a national level, presidential elections in some way must involve everyone's input regardless of region.
     
  25. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #25
    That small, you don't. But otherwise winner of the states gets 2 EV's, winner of each CD gets 1.
     

Share This Page