tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 26, 2016 23:00:41 GMT -5
But again, where is the logic in having someone's vote count more or less depending on where they live? One vote in California is worth about 1/240,000 of an elector. A vote in Alaska, Wyoming, or South Dakota (I think) is worth about 1/80,000 of an elector. If one truly wants to reform the system, shouldn't they want to do away with such inequity? Why should a vote in a small state be worth three times as much? We have a saying (it's supposed to be an ideal) of, "One person, one vote." Too bad we don't really mean it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 23:12:57 GMT -5
But again, where is the logic in having someone's vote count more or less depending on where they live? One vote in California is worth about 1/240,000 of an elector. A vote in Alaska, Wyoming, or South Dakota (I think) is worth about 1/80,000 of an elector. If one truly wants to reform the system, shouldn't they want to do away with such inequity? Why should a vote in a small state be worth three times as much? We have a saying (it's supposed to be an ideal) of, "One person, one vote." Too bad we don't really mean it. That's why with my revision, votes are accorded based on the ACTUAL NUMBER OF VOTERS but without letting any one or two states run away with it.
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Nov 26, 2016 23:28:03 GMT -5
No one was worried about the EC BEFORE the election.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 26, 2016 23:39:28 GMT -5
The areas that voted for Clinton control 65% of the economic output in this country. You want them to continually have their representation stolen? I was brought up under Rand, the only irony in a shrug actually happening is that it wouldn't come from the 'conservatives'... there needs to be some fix. Stolen? No. But it shouldn't grossly steal the representation from the whole rest of the country either. That's why instead of scrapping the Electoral College, it should be revamped, as I suggested somewhere else: - Keep how the number of "Electors" is calculated the same (1 "Elector" for every Senator and Representative).
- Convert the "Electors" to simple variables in a formula (no more human electors, removes the possibility of "faithless electors")
- Grant "Electors" to states as a percentage of total "country-wide" votes, not to exceed 10% of the total. Yes, it would take away 0.2% of California's "Electors", BUT the "winning side" would have already lost their current 10.2% TOTAL with provision #4 anyway, because I guarantee that the state is NOT "100% Democrat".
- Remove the "winner take all" provision from ALL states that have it. State "Electors" to be proportionally divided among the top THREE candidates.
Other than disenfranchising some voters if they live in a state with large population and high voter turnout, what would be the advantage of this system over a straight popular vote?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 23:42:42 GMT -5
I was wondering too... if it's direct proportional, how would it be any different, ultimately?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 0:01:25 GMT -5
I was wondering too... if it's direct proportional, how would it be any different, ultimately? Rounding.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 0:08:19 GMT -5
Stolen? No. But it shouldn't grossly steal the representation from the whole rest of the country either. That's why instead of scrapping the Electoral College, it should be revamped, as I suggested somewhere else: - Keep how the number of "Electors" is calculated the same (1 "Elector" for every Senator and Representative).
- Convert the "Electors" to simple variables in a formula (no more human electors, removes the possibility of "faithless electors")
- Grant "Electors" to states as a percentage of total "country-wide" votes, not to exceed 10% of the total. Yes, it would take away 0.2% of California's "Electors", BUT the "winning side" would have already lost their current 10.2% TOTAL with provision #4 anyway, because I guarantee that the state is NOT "100% Democrat".
- Remove the "winner take all" provision from ALL states that have it. State "Electors" to be proportionally divided among the top THREE candidates.
Other than disenfranchising some voters if they live in a state with large population and high voter turnout, what would be the advantage of this system over a straight popular vote? It would disenfranchise less than the current system currently does. because a high turnout in a lower EC state still gets low EC, while a lower turnout in a higher EC state still gets what they get. Take New Jersey and Virginia, for example (yes, I know, they both went Democrat this year, but the point stands): This year New Jersey got 3,674,893 (source: Wall Street Journal) This year Virginia got 3,844,787 (source: Wall Street Journal) YET... New Jersey was awarded 14 Electoral votes (even though they had less votes) Virginia was awarded only 13 Electoral votes (even though they had more votes) It would also lessen the possibility of the "popular vote" winner and the "EC" winner being different, due to each state dividing electors. Plus, it would have the added advantage of probably getting more people out to vote because more people would be able to push their state's percentage of total higher.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 0:12:17 GMT -5
And as much worse off the country would be... Hillary PROBABLY would have won using my formula (someone better than me and with more time available would have to confirm that theory though).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 0:21:37 GMT -5
Addendum to my previous post suggesting how EC could be transformed to be better than it is now.
With a total combined (Hillary + Donald) NATIONWIDE of 126,436,475 and California having only cast 11,071,833 (Hillary + Donald)
They wouldn't have reached the "10%" cutoff anyway. They would have needed another 1.6M votes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 0:23:59 GMT -5
They aren't done counting yet...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 0:24:26 GMT -5
You would not be able to know the results (by knowing how to apportion electoral votes) until days or weeks later after all votes were counted. If you used results from the previous election you would still be disenfranchising voters in states which had population increases or increased voter involvement. Some of the differences would be that states like Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming would only receive one EV, while Florida would have been bumped up to 40 or 41. Because of the closeness of that vote, the breakdown would have been something like Trump 20, Clinton 20, and Johnson 1. If you are going to go to that much trouble to mirror the popular vote more closely, why bother?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 0:42:41 GMT -5
No one was worried about the EC BEFORE the election. They are still working through the grieving process and can't help themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 0:44:46 GMT -5
You would not be able to know the results (by knowing how to apportion electoral votes) until days or weeks later after all votes were counted. If you used results from the previous election you would still be disenfranchising voters in states which had population increases or increased voter involvement. Some of the differences would be that states like Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming would only receive one EV, while Florida would have been bumped up to 40 or 41. Because of the closeness of that vote, the breakdown would have been something like Trump 20, Clinton 20, and Johnson 1. If you are going to go to that much trouble to mirror the popular vote more closely, why bother? I understand what you are saying. But it's not about "mirroring" the Popular vote. It's about making it resemble the will of the voters as closely as possible without losing our status as a Republic. I LIKE being a Republic where the power of the majority is tempered somewhat.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 0:46:49 GMT -5
No one was worried about the EC BEFORE the election. People arguing for the abolishment of the Electoral College has been going on for a very long time, and probably since before any of us were born. I've been against the EC since I could vote. And if you recall, it was an issue in 2000 as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 0:53:17 GMT -5
No one was worried about the EC BEFORE the election. They are still working through the grieving process and can't help themselves. Before gore it was 112 years to the prior split. Currently the Republicans have now won 1 popular vote out of the last 7 races, but taken the office 3 times. And never has the popular vote been so lopsided in comparison... the gore majority was thin. Demographic analysis suggests this is more likely to keep happening. It will need to be addressed, or there will need to be a break of the country into several. The Republic will not be sustainable if this continues to happen and to a greater degree.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 27, 2016 1:00:06 GMT -5
I posted along the way, "what if Trump does win?" What will you do?
Now we have it, Now we know!!
So, what if Trump does know how to run a Country like he know how to run a business?
What if he does make positive changes? What if he does "Make America Great"
Are you still going to whine, kick the dirt, keep throwing your little temper tantrums?
Yea, I think you are, no matter what he does!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 1:04:42 GMT -5
They are still working through the grieving process and can't help themselves. Before gore it was 112 years to the prior split. Currently the Republicans have now won 1 popular vote out of the last 7 races, but taken the office 3 times. And never has the popular vote been so lopsided in comparison... the gore majority was thin. Demographic analysis suggests this is more likely to keep happening. It will need to be addressed, or there will need to be a break of the country into several. The Republic will not be sustainable if this continues to happen and to a greater degree. It won't be sustainable if 1 or 2 states choose all our winners either. It's not a perfect system but better than most.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 1:05:50 GMT -5
America is already "Great". Trump can't "make it great again".
(he can get us out of the hole Obama dug us deeper into if he can... and wants to, though)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 1:20:20 GMT -5
The biggest problem for the long-term is debt. Trump promises to explode it in the manner of all recent Republican presidents, with a moronic tax plan that decreases revenue in favor of large cash benefits for the already-wealthy. Not sure how anyone (with the obvious exception of those already-wealthy) can consider that getting us out of a hole. Best way to actually do that is to stop digging, not by bringing in a backhoe.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 2:20:54 GMT -5
The biggest problem for the long-term is debt. Trump promises to explode it in the manner of all recent Republican presidents, with a moronic tax plan that decreases revenue in favor of large cash benefits for the already-wealthy. Not sure how anyone (with the obvious exception of those already-wealthy) can consider that getting us out of a hole. Best way to actually do that is to stop digging, not by bringing in a backhoe. Hence my "if he can... and wants to, though"...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 3:03:50 GMT -5
How confident are you that his tax plan was just another "promise?" I figure that is about the only thing that he can undoubtedly deliver. Not only does the GOP still delude themselves with the, "Tax cuts heal all ills" nonsense, but it is another way that he can enrich himself at our expense. It's a no-brainer for him. He doesn't give a damn about anyone else, really.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 3:27:10 GMT -5
So many other parts of this piece I could quote....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 4:40:35 GMT -5
How confident are you that his tax plan was just another "promise?" I figure that is about the only thing that he can undoubtedly deliver. Not only does the GOP still delude themselves with the, "Tax cuts heal all ills" nonsense, but it is another way that he can enrich himself at our expense. It's a no-brainer for him. He doesn't give a damn about anyone else, really. I hope he's smart enough to realize he has to do some good in the first four years if he wants a second four. Next time there won't be any "Never Hillary" crowd to push him into the win. I'm more worried about his second four (when he's got nothing to lose), if he gets it. Either way, he's better than Hillary. We KNOW she would have just continued digging the hole deeper. Him, we're not 100% sure of
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 6:07:44 GMT -5
Hillary would likely have ended up as an average to slightly below-average president, somewhere along the lines of George Bush Sr. She would not have been a strong or inspiring leader but she would have been fairly good on most policy issues. Her work ethic alone would have gotten her most of the way there. And there is zero chance that she would be subject to the views of such a ridiculously bad cast of advisers as Trump is choosing. I have very little faith that Trump will even be as good as GWB. His focus is not and never will be on either the country or its people. It is all on him. Bush 43 was an incompetent know-nothing, but I don't think of him as malicious in any way. Trump is walking corruption, who lives to exploit. How is this even in doubt? He's been both showing and telling us exactly who he is for forty years.
And there is no way he wants a second four. I would bet that he never really wanted the first four. It likely surprised him as much as everyone else when he won.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 6:13:51 GMT -5
Hillary would likely have ended up as an average to slightly below-average president, somewhere along the lines of George Bush Sr. She would not have been a strong or inspiring leader but she would have been fairly good on most policy issues. Her work ethic alone would have gotten her most of the way there. And there is zero chance that she would be subject to the views of such a ridiculously bad cast of advisers as Trump is choosing. I have very little faith that Trump will even be as good as GWB. His focus is not and never will be on either the country or its people. It is all on him. Bush 43 was an incompetent know-nothing, but I don't think of him as malicious in any way. Trump is walking corruption, who lives to exploit. How is this even in doubt? He's been both showing and telling us exactly who he is for forty years. And you think Hillary isn't, doesn't, and hasn't been? (By the way, who said what you say about Trump is in doubt? Remember... I believe that they are BOTH disastrous for the country... Hillary is just more-so than Donald)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 6:30:07 GMT -5
No, I don't. I haven't been snowed by the endless accusations, misrepresentations, and outright lies of those arrayed against her. She has made mistakes, certainly, but has also acknowledged them. Even some Republicans have stated that at least some of the literally dozens of investigations are politically motivated. They have spent tens of millions of tax dollars for what, negative press piled atop her name? She could likely spot Donald Trump eight points in an ethics contest to ten and still beat him. He is a joke, and has been from the start. Now we are the joke.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 6:39:46 GMT -5
No, I don't. I haven't been snowed by the endless accusations, misrepresentations, and outright lies of those arrayed against her. She has made mistakes, certainly, but has also acknowledged them. Even some Republicans have stated that at least some of the literally dozens of investigations are politically motivated. They have spent tens of millions of tax dollars for what, negative press piled atop her name? She could likely spot Donald Trump eight points in an ethics contest to ten and still beat him. He is a joke, and has been from the start. Now we are the joke. You've bought the whitewash... That's all I can say about that. We would have been "the joke" either way. But... whatever our personal feelings, what's done is done, and he's going to the next President. Now all we can do is hope he doesn't screw up the country TOO badly.
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Nov 27, 2016 9:01:29 GMT -5
They are still working through the grieving process and can't help themselves. Before gore it was 112 years to the prior split. Currently the Republicans have now won 1 popular vote out of the last 7 races, but taken the office 3 times. And never has the popular vote been so lopsided in comparison... the gore majority was thin. Demographic analysis suggests this is more likely to keep happening. It will need to be addressed, or there will need to be a break of the country into several. The Republic will not be sustainable if this continues to happen and to a greater degree. "Lopsided"?? U know even at 2 million vote lead. Out of approx 130 million total votes that means she won the popular vote by 1.5 percent. Hardly "lopsided" IMO
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:23:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 9:40:50 GMT -5
I know it's likely to keep growing, and has never been so distinctive before...
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Nov 27, 2016 10:35:24 GMT -5
No one was worried about the EC BEFORE the election. People arguing for the abolishment of the Electoral College has been going on for a very long time, and probably since before any of us were born. I've been against the EC since I could vote. And if you recall, it was an issue in 2000 as well. Populer vote is only fair way to go...a POTUS is just that...really has nothing to do with the States...with all the moaning and groaning against whoever the President is, don't believe I have ever heard, especially in the modern era, a POTUS favoring their home State to any degree...Ok, when Johnson was President Houston got the Space HQ...notb sure if that was best spot or not but over all , States don't seem to play a big part of how Presidents favor things. A populer vote would have meant my votes for POTUS while I lived in TEXAS [11 years] would have meant something beyond just my showing I was taking advantage of my unailable right to cast a vote...[voted democratic each time..in Texas..? lol.....] Same as all u folks here..if any GOP favoring folks say living in say Connecticut or Massachusettsd say..be nice to have your vote count plus I guarantee the % of people voting will increase..Since I believe to change the waywe pick would need a constitutioinal amendment I doubt in our life time to see such a change.. ""Lopsided"?? U know even at 2 million vote lead. Out of approx 130 million total votes that means she won the popular vote by 1.5 percent. Hardly "lopsided" IMO "....
actually, while not possible lopsided...the way our elections for POTUS seem to go..a goodly amount..definitly a good mandate...but all in vain...not how we do things here..
|
|