Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
danielost

Electoral college

43 posts in this topic

I believe that the Districts are redrawn if necessary to reflect the latest census numbers so that each district contains about the same number of people. Of course each district will not have exactly the same number of people, but they should be fairly close in terms of percentage of the total population.

I think the EC District idea has merit, counties not so much.

Districts are drawn by the party in charge at the time, of course they try to draw them so they get the most votes. They party not in charge cries about it not being fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Districts are drawn by the party in charge at the time, of course they try to draw them so they get the most votes. They party not in charge cries about it not being fair.

Be that as it may, Bama is correct that the districts are re-drawn after each census to insure they are as equal as possible. It's the main purpose of the census. Edited by IamsSon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are no longer represented like we should be. We hit an artficial celling in 2000. So all there doing is shuffling the reps around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are no longer represented like we should be. We hit an artficial celling in 2000. So all there doing is shuffling the reps around.

Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So using your method each county, no matter how many people live in the county, would get 1 EC vote. Hmm... Counties with a few thousand people would count the same as counties with 10s of thousands people. Over 9 million people live in LA County (Ca), Loving County (Tx) has 82 people. Doesn't seem right that 82 votes could cancel out over 9 million votes.

That is the extremes but that is also why this would work. Because now, all you have to do is throw the majority of your campaign funds into the 15 or so most populated counties and those that only have 82 won't count (their vote is meaningless). By using amortization, the extremes cancel out provided they are opposite. The election could no longer be bought by confusing the low information voter. It'll be based on the candidate's capabilities and it makes everyone's vote count. In order to *win* your county for your candidate, you have to do your research and the low information voter will not expend the energy and the candidate would be unable to effectively spread his funds that thin. They would have to focus on their capabilities and qualifications for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain.

Back in the thirties or fourties, not real sure when they voted to limit the house to 485(this may not be the right number.

We went over that number in 2000 by one. Since then we have hit 300 million in population. All this because they didn't want to buld a new building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we put a limit of 485 was that if we didn't we would have a house of representatives that would be about 10667 members large since in the constitution it was suppose to be one representative for every 30000 thousand citizens and since we have a population of 320 million not putting a limit on it would just be ridiculous. It is a bit more then us not wanting to just build a new building, it is more of us not wanting to have to build a stadium for government and actually being able to get something done.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we put a limit of 485 was that if we didn't we would have a house of representatives that would be about 10667 members large since in the constitution it was suppose to be one representative for every 30000 thousand citizens and since we have a population of 320 million not putting a limit on it would just be ridiculous. It is a bit more then us not wanting to just build a new building, it is more of us not wanting to have to build a stadium for government and actually being able to get something done.

Increasing the percentage of population represented by each member of the House is not the same as not being represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A proportional representation would have also the distinctive property to end the two party domination as small parties would have a chance. But that would mean to do away with the whole electoral college and substitute it for a direct, election dependent, proportional division of seats among the incumbent parties.

On the other hand that would leave open lots of room for goat trading: my 5% in Maine for the presidency for your 11% for Senator in California.... whether that reflects the will of the people is debatable. And the current seating system would then have to be changed too, Senators still would be the one with the majority but Congress would have to be elected with every cycle and then the seats would have to be proportionally divided according to election results.

In short, the current British system (yes, there is where the American system was copied from, except that there is an elected prezz and {almost} no inherited positions) would have to be changed for the Northern European one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not get rid of parties entirely and have open primaries?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not get rid of parties entirely and have open primaries?

Because candidates would need a lot of money to make themselves known, that would just worsen the problem because that money does not come for free. It is bad enough as it is already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where the money situation is different with parties or without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where the money situation is different with parties or without them.

Parties get their money from several sources: Members, donations, inheritance and so on. So they can afford to shovel the money around from candidate to candidate according to the real needs of each. The independent does not have the backup, he has to come up with the money all by himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand that would leave open lots of room for goat trading: my 5% in Maine for the presidency for your 11% for Senator in California.... whether that reflects the will of the people is debatable.

It is very debatable! This is precisely what happens with more than two parties. Parliaments are like this. To get something done requires coalitions and coalitions are always changing. To create a coalition you go to the backroom deal and once you do that, you lose the ability to represent the people. With more than two parties, you can never have a majority unless you do assemble a coalition. With two parties, the majority is always in question (sides never change as with coalitions) and through that *chaos* does governance occur. But Socialism does not play well with others. It is a *greedy algorithm*. It must increasingly have it its way. That is why our Founding Fathers gave us the government we have. It is better that government is in chaos and not the people. But even this is failing because Socialism has slowly (over the past century) permeated our system to disastrous levels.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the percentage of population represented by each member of the House is not the same as not being represented.

I didn't say we weren't being represented. I said we weren't being represented like we are supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .

Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."

http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-electoral-college-votes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toto your idea might open it up t more people on the presidental stage. The founding fathers didn't have running mates. They had it set up where four ran and the two largest votes where pres. And vice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.