We're stuck with the electoral college. But there is a workaround

[steve_bank]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

 

[steve_bank]

The Democrats should do away with the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Just have one national popular vote for the party presidential nominee. Make it real, man.

We are a republic of states not a unfueled whole with a central govt , like France.The major parties have conventions, and the candite with most poular votes does not have to be selected.

Parties can choose candiates any way they want. The problem is the DNC and RNC are instutions with a lot of money and power. Simple popular votes takes them out of loop to a large degree.

The think to do would be ban police parties. Something Jefferson thought would be a good idea observing how quickly polecat factions emerged.

The other thing I bwliev is the requirement to get a certain number of votes to get on the ballot in each state. A national POTUS election would be run by the federal govt.

 

[Rhea]

The think to do would be ban police parties. Something Jefferson thought would be a good idea observing how quickly polecat factions emerged.

I just want to kow if “polecat” was a funny typo or a funny commentary.

pole·cat
/ˈpōlˌkat/
noun
a weasel-like Eurasian mammal (genus Mustela, family Mustelidae ) with mainly dark brown fur and a darker mask across the eyes, noted for ejecting a fetid fluid when threatened.
NORTH AMERICAN
another term for skunk.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

Sorry, but I just feel like this is such a silly argument. Why do you need a politician to come to your town? Do you not have a TV, radio, or the internet? American soldiers stationed in Europe are able to make a political decision even when the politician doesn't campaign in Europe. I wonder sometimes how many people really change their mind just because a politician comes to their state? We're stuck with the EC. But it was established in a time when the best communication we had was via pony express. It's crazy that we can't see how times have changed...

 

[zorq]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

Why would it be beneficial to choose a winner of ANYTHING by doing a statistical sampling when you have the viable alternative of actually counting every preference? Why should citizens in Montana get bonus points and more attention than the same number of people (who actually do) live in San Jose, California?

Montana has a population of 1 million people, San Jose has a population of 1.2 million people. California has a population of 39.5 million people. California gets 55 Electoral votes. Do the math and the population of San Jose only gets 1.7 Electoral votes, compared to Montana's 3, despite having 20% more people than the state of Montana. I have to ask WHY is the opinion of a citizen living in Montana more valuable than the opinion of a citizen living in San Jose? People opinions aren't more or less valid when they change their addresses. At least they shouldn't be.

 

[Trausti]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

Why would it be beneficial to choose a winner of ANYTHING by doing a statistical sampling when you have the viable alternative of actually counting every preference? Why should citizens in Montana get bonus points and more attention than the same number of people (who actually do) live in San Jose, California?

Montana has a population of 1 million people, San Jose has a population of 1.2 million people. California has a population of 39.5 million people. California gets 55 Electoral votes. Do the math and the population of San Jose only gets 1.7 Electoral votes, compared to Montana's 3, despite having 20% more people than the state of Montana. I have to ask WHY is the opinion of a citizen living in Montana more valuable than the opinion of a citizen living in San Jose? People opinions aren't more or less valid when they change their addresses. At least they shouldn't be.

It's not. But California and Montana are different states. That how this USA thing works.

 

[ZiprHead]

But California and Montana are different states. That how this USA thing works.

States don't vote. People do. One person's vote should not count more than another's.

And obviously for the majority of people it's not working.

 

[Trausti]

But California and Montana are different states. That how this USA thing works.

States don't vote. People do. One person's vote should not count more than another's.

And obviously for the majority of people it's not working.

Why would Montana want to be in a union with California if California gets to call all the shots?

 

[steve_bank]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

Sorry, but I just feel like this is such a silly argument. Why do you need a politician to come to your town? Do you not have a TV, radio, or the internet? American soldiers stationed in Europe are able to make a political decision even when the politician doesn't campaign in Europe. I wonder sometimes how many people really change their mind just because a politician comes to their state? We're stuck with the EC. But it was established in a time when the best communication we had was via pony express. It's crazy that we can't see how times have changed...

They do come on TV, 100s of millions of dollars are spent on TV ads targeted to specific locations and demographics.

I saw Bush senior at a rally in a New Hampshire mall. He was walking around shaking hands.

Without the electoral college several states would dominate the presidency. That is the common view. It is not about communication. In the original east cost states communications were slower but it was comprehensive. There was a media establishment with the same attack strategies and 'fake news' of today. Calming one side would be weak on defense goes back to the beginning.

 

[steve_bank]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

Why would it be beneficial to choose a winner of ANYTHING by doing a statistical sampling when you have the viable alternative of actually counting every preference? Why should citizens in Montana get bonus points and more attention than the same number of people (who actually do) live in San Jose, California?

Montana has a population of 1 million people, San Jose has a population of 1.2 million people. California has a population of 39.5 million people. California gets 55 Electoral votes. Do the math and the population of San Jose only gets 1.7 Electoral votes, compared to Montana's 3, despite having 20% more people than the state of Montana. I have to ask WHY is the opinion of a citizen living in Montana more valuable than the opinion of a citizen living in San Jose? People opinions aren't more or less valid when they change their addresses. At least they shouldn't be.

Proportional representation may be the correct term. As it is some states are generaly ignored as not cost effective to put campaign money into.

Perhaps a vole by states for POTUS. Each state gets 1 vote. Majority vote in each state rules. That gets rid of Gerrymandering.

 

[lpetrich]

Without the electoral college several states would dominate the presidency.

Except that that's what happens now -- a few "swing states" act as kingmakers. I reread The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68 and there is not even the tiniest speck of support for some small subsets of states being kingmaker states.

 

[ZiprHead]

But California and Montana are different states. That how this USA thing works.

States don't vote. People do. One person's vote should not count more than another's.

And obviously for the majority of people it's not working.

Why would Montana want to be in a union with California if California gets to call all the shots?

California doesn't call all the shots so your whole premise is shot.

 

[Trausti]

Why would Montana want to be in a union with California if California gets to call all the shots?

California doesn't call all the shots so your whole premise is shot.

That's because we have the electoral college.

 

[zorq]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

Why would it be beneficial to choose a winner of ANYTHING by doing a statistical sampling when you have the viable alternative of actually counting every preference? Why should citizens in Montana get bonus points and more attention than the same number of people (who actually do) live in San Jose, California?

Montana has a population of 1 million people, San Jose has a population of 1.2 million people. California has a population of 39.5 million people. California gets 55 Electoral votes. Do the math and the population of San Jose only gets 1.7 Electoral votes, compared to Montana's 3, despite having 20% more people than the state of Montana. I have to ask WHY is the opinion of a citizen living in Montana more valuable than the opinion of a citizen living in San Jose? People opinions aren't more or less valid when they change their addresses. At least they shouldn't be.

Proportional representation may be the correct term. As it is some states are generaly ignored as not cost effective to put campaign money into.

Perhaps a vole by states for POTUS. Each state gets 1 vote. Majority vote in each state rules. That gets rid of Gerrymandering.

That makes it even worse. In that scenario, the Montana voter's vote is 39.5 times more powerful than the vote of a Californian.

Advertising may be more efficient in some places than others, but that does NOT justify weighing some people's votes heavier than others. Do you really think that your local media company's going rate for ads is what should determine how much influence you have in an election?

 

[Terrell]

The bicameral legistalure and the electoral college sre intende to provide a balnce in represention and in presidential elections.

Without the electoral college candidates will only campaign in high density areas, like Californian. Montana and Wyoming would no effect at all.

I look at the electoral college as a kind of statistical sampling of the population. Sometimes the candidate wins without winning the popular vote.

Why would it be beneficial to choose a winner of ANYTHING by doing a statistical sampling when you have the viable alternative of actually counting every preference? Why should citizens in Montana get bonus points and more attention than the same number of people (who actually do) live in San Jose, California?

Montana has a population of 1 million people, San Jose has a population of 1.2 million people. California has a population of 39.5 million people. California gets 55 Electoral votes. Do the math and the population of San Jose only gets 1.7 Electoral votes, compared to Montana's 3, despite having 20% more people than the state of Montana. I have to ask WHY is the opinion of a citizen living in Montana more valuable than the opinion of a citizen living in San Jose? People opinions aren't more or less valid when they change their addresses. At least they shouldn't be.

Proportional representation may be the correct term. As it is some states are generaly ignored as not cost effective to put campaign money into.

Perhaps a vole by states for POTUS. Each state gets 1 vote. Majority vote in each state rules. That gets rid of Gerrymandering.

If the election is decided in the House of Representatives, each state gets one vote. For it to go to the House requires that no candidate get a majority in the electoral college. 1 state, 1 vote, means Republican control of the White House for as far as the foreseeable future. From the point of view of states that are moderate to liberal that's a worse deal than the electoral college.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why would Montana want to be in a union with California if California gets to call all the shots?

California doesn't call all the shots so your whole premise is shot.

That's because we have the electoral college.

Montana doesn't have an electoral college. Why would the people of Meagher County want to stay in Montana when Billings can call all the shots?

 

[lpetrich]

Abolishing The Electoral College Used To Be A Bipartisan Position. Not Anymore. | FiveThirtyEight

Fifty years ago, both Democrats and Republicans had nearly equal fractions of opinion on the Electoral College, both ordinary people and politicians. In 1969, an amendment was introduced to abolish it. It passed the House with over 80% of each party supporting it, but it died in the Senate after some small-state senators from both parties filibustered it to death.

But not anymore. Nowadays, Republicans like the Electoral College much more than Democrats, likely because it has helped them get the Presidency without broadening their appeal.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why would Montana want to be in a union with California if California gets to call all the shots?

California doesn't call all the shots so your whole premise is shot.

That's because we have the electoral college.

The problem is that the legislature has ceded too much power to the Presidency and supreme court. A significant majority of Americans didn't vote for the republicans in 2016. And yet the republicans had absolute power in 16. EC has to go.

 

[lpetrich]

I checked National Popular Vote New Mexico has now ratified it. 189 electoral votes with 81 to go. One more step on the road.

The page mentions efforts in MI, NV, and OR, but I don't know how far those efforts will go. If successful, that would add 16 + 6 + 7 = 29 EV's, giving 218 EV's with 52 to go.

 

[lpetrich]

The Oregon Senate has finally passed it. The Oregon House has passed it in the past, and may likely do so this time around. The Oregon Governor apparently supports it, so we may soon get 7 more EV's in support of the National Popular Vote.