the EC ( meeting in the middle)

[dogs4thewin]

As you are probably well aware the EC has been quite the topic as of late with some people saying we get rid of it and others STRONGLY disagreeing with that. What if instead of getting rid of of it there was a law that said all states must do it as ME and NE do? For those who do not know they may have split votes they take their votes ( four and five respectfully) and two votes go to the winner of the popular vote in the state. The remaining votes go to the winner of each district. This method is as opposed to everyone else where winner takes all the EVS even if parts of the state vote the other way. This way, we could still go by the popular vote in a sense without making it to where some states had all of the power. Another plus is this may encourage people to vote because people would know their vote had a greater chance of counting and you would not have people in say red parts of CA saying well what is the point of me voting?

 

[Nithavela]

As you are probably well aware the EC has been quite the topic as of late with some people saying we get rid of it and others STRONGLY disagreeing with that. What if instead of getting rid of of it there was a law that said all states must do it as ME and NE do? For those who do not know they may have split votes they take their votes ( four and five respectfully) and two votes go to the winner of the popular vote in the sate. The remaining votes go to the winner of each district. This method is as opposed to everyone else where winner takes all the EVS even if parts of the state vote the other way. This way, we could still go by the popular vote in a sense without making it to where some states had all of the power. Another plus is this may encourage people to vote because people would know their vote had a greater chance of counting and you would not have people in say red parts of CA saying well what is the point of me voting?

Would you mind explaing all those abreviations?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Would you mind explaing all those abreviations?

electoral college and electoral vote. ME and NE are the abrevtions for two of our states.

 

[Desk trauma]

A improvement but not much of one.

 

[eleos1954]

Old saying .... if it ain't broke don't fix it .... it isn't broke.

The founding fathers established it in the Constitution.

Everyone who is eligible to vote should go vote regardless ... whatever their reasons for not voting is up to them.

 

[jayem]

What's the point? Why in the 21st century do we need middlemen to elect the President in any manner? The EC is the product of an awkward compromise over 2 issues: 1) Some members of the Constitutional Convention wanted the Congress to elect the President. They didn't trust the voters to make wise decisions. Which is basically elitism. 2) Members from smaller states were afraid voters in states with larger populations would overwhelm Presidential elections. This assumes that voters in larger states vote the same way. Which is still an argument used to support the EC. But it's obsolete, 18th century thinking. It's saying smaller states need a handicap to level the playing field. And it's also saying that states are more important than people. This is antiquated nonsense. In the modern world, geography is meaningless. There are conservative voters in CA, and liberal voters in TX. Why shouldn't their votes count the same just like all the others?

 

[jayem]

Old saying .... if it ain't broke don't fix it .... it isn't broke.

The founding fathers established it in the Constitution.

Of course it's broken. It disenfranchises people. It's an archaic relic that reflects the political concerns of over 2 centuries ago. It's unfit for today's world, and cannot be fixed.

The founders were not infallible. And they knew it. They incorporated ways to amend the Constitution so that it would adapt to changing times. Thomas Jefferson--who was in Paris during the Convention--believed amendments were inadequate. In a letter to James Madison, he stated that a new Constitution should be written for each generation. Which he calculated was every 19 years. Obviously, that's not at all practical. But he was right on the money when he wrote that the earth belongs to the living, not the dead. In the 21st century, we're under no obligation to blindly and unquestioningly accept 18th century values.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

 

[Belk]

As you are probably well aware the EC has been quite the topic as of late with some people saying we get rid of it and others STRONGLY disagreeing with that. What if instead of getting rid of of it there was a law that said all states must do it as ME and NE do? For those who do not know they may have split votes they take their votes ( four and five respectfully) and two votes go to the winner of the popular vote in the sate. The remaining votes go to the winner of each district. This method is as opposed to everyone else where winner takes all the EVS even if parts of the state vote the other way. This way, we could still go by the popular vote in a sense without making it to where some states had all of the power. Another plus is this may encourage people to vote because people would know their vote had a greater chance of counting and you would not have people in say red parts of CA saying well what is the point of me voting?

So your idea is that instead of modifying the constitution to get rid of the EC we should modify the constitution so that nominations are no longer up to the states? Not seeing that going any where.

 

[Pommer]

electoral college and electoral vote. ME and NE are the abrevtions for two of our states.

ME=Maine, NE=Nebraska, these two states have each of their districts send Electoral College electors instead of “winner take all”.

 

[eleos1954]

Of course it's broken. It disenfranchises people. It's an archaic relic that reflects the political concerns of over 2 centuries ago. It's unfit for today's world, and cannot be fixed.

The founders were not infallible. And they knew it. They incorporated ways to amend the Constitution so that it would adapt to changing times. Thomas Jefferson--who was in Paris during the Convention--believed amendments were inadequate. In a letter to James Madison, he stated that a new Constitution should be written for each generation. Which he calculated was every 19 years. Obviously, that's not at all practical. But he was right on the money when he wrote that the earth belongs to the living, not the dead. In the 21st century, we're under no obligation to blindly and unquestioningly accept 18th century values.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

I live in a rural state.

 

[jayem]

If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

I live in a rural state.

You're stuck on the antiquated notion that states should play a role in deciding the Presidency. Please tell me why individual states should matter in a Presidential election. The interests of states are addressed by their Senators and House reps in Congress. The President is a national official, who works (or should work) for all of the people in the country. The only thing that should matter is each person's vote. Direct popular vote election means that your vote--wherever you live--counts the same as every other vote. Why is this wrong?

BTW, the campaigns already spend most all of their time and money in several high-population swing states. How many candidates will visit smaller, rural states with only 3 or 4 EV's? I'd think you have a better chance that a candidate will appear in person if the election is decided by popular vote. Because a smart candidate would know that every vote, from every state--whether cast by an urban, suburban, or rural voter--will add to his total.

 

[Belk]

If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

I live in a rural state.

No, that makes no sense. If the president is elected by national vote then everyone vote counts equally. Why would that make rural counties irrelevant?

 

[JSRG]

BTW, the campaigns already spend most all of their time and money in several high-population swing states. How many candidates will visit smaller, rural states with only 3 or 4 EV's? I'd think you have a better chance that a candidate will appear in person if the election is decided by popular vote. Because a smart candidate would know that every vote, from every state--whether cast by an urban, suburban, or rural voter--will add to his total.

Actually, a popular vote would give those smaller states a dramatically better chance of getting visits from candidates than the electoral college.

Except for New Hampshire, I believe every single small state (let "small state" mean "state with 3 or 4 electoral votes") is overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat. Biden will win Hawaii. Trump will win Montana. Those are simple hard facts. So there is no reason for them to pay any attention to those states. The number of votes up for grabs is functionally 0.

But in a popular vote? The swing voters in those states suddenly matter. Sure, they don't matter much, because there's not many of them. But even, say, 20,000 votes out of 150 million(ish) is infinitely more than 0 votes out of 538.

If you want candidates to pay attention to and campaign in small states other than New Hampshire, then a popular vote would be a heck of a lot more effective than the electoral college, at least the winner-takes-all variety.

 

[Gene2memE]

If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

I live in a rural state.

The influence of small and rural states influence would be reduced. But they wouldn't have zero influence.

At present, their influence is ... outsized.

For instance, based on the 2016 elections, residents of Wyoming had a relative vote weight of ~2.97. Residents of Florida had a vote weight of 0.78.

As a result, each voter in Wyoming counts for almost four voters in Florida.

Numbers from this post.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Old saying .... if it ain't broke don't fix it .... it isn't broke.

The founding fathers established it in the Constitution.

Everyone who is eligible to vote should go vote regardless ... whatever their reasons for not voting is up to them.

But it is broke and out dated.

 

[KCfromNC]

As you are probably well aware the EC has been quite the topic as of late with some people saying we get rid of it and others STRONGLY disagreeing with that. What if instead of getting rid of of it there was a law that said all states must do it as ME and NE do?

Mainly because it wouldn't address the overall problem with the EC - places where no one wants to live get an oversized say in who the president is.

 

[driewerf]

If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

I live in a rural state.

And that is exactly an argument that misses the entire point of the popular vote: states are entirely out of the equation. With the popular vote, every vote is counted: a conservative vote in a progressive state is equally counted as a progressive vote in a conservative state. Suddenly all votes matter.

 

[Arcangl86]

If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

I live in a rural state.

Here is the last 10 weeks of the 2016 election. Look how many states are completly ignored. The Last 10 Weeks Of 2016 Campaign Stops In One Handy Gif And there are more that are ignored by one party or the other because it's considered a lock for the other party. For the most part the only states that are visited are larger swing states. Each candidate visited Florida at least half a dozen times and not a single visit to the entire Northwest or Midwest west of the MIssissippi. National Popular Vote would mean more visit both to those states and to other states that are considered to be one party dominate. To use the example of California, which is seen as a liberal haven, between 4.5 and 5.5 million people voted for the Republican candidate. BUt those votes don't count since California is overwhelmingly Democratic, so Republicans avoid it or do a single cursory stop. Realistically campaign stops would be limited probably to urban areas, but that's better then completely ignored.

 

[eleos1954]

But it is broke and out dated.

It is not broke. It provides more equality to the smaller rural states .... rather than the big city populations controlling what goes on. Politicians are after votes .... majority of voters are in the big cities ... if popular vote is instituted then no reason for the politicians to consider (address their needs) in the rural areas ... they would be ignored.

 

[Belk]

It is not broke. It provides more equality to the smaller rural states .... rather than the big city populations controlling what goes on. Politicians are after votes .... majority of voters are in the big cities ... if popular vote is instituted then no reason for the politicians to consider (address their needs) in the rural areas ... they would be ignored.

No it does not. It provides an outsize influence for STATES that are more rural but it does nothing for rural areas in general. And why should rural areas have this outsize influence in who selects the president?