is it time to exchange the electoral college for the popular vote

is it time to exchange the electoral college for the popular vote

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Mott the Hoople said:
Actualy they don't. In most States rural regions have nearly a 2 to 1 advantage in representation over urban/suburban regions. Rural areas are grossly over represented already. That is they have 2/3 of the political influence while having far less than half the population. In most midwest, southern and western states rural regions represent 1/3 of the population but have 2/3 or more of the political representation. Cities and urban areas do in fact need more political representation.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. It is true that rural areas can often effectively swamp urban areas, either because they're split among several rural majority districts in a gerrymandering scheme (Austin is big enough for it's own district, but has four different Republican representatives), or they're too small for their own district (pretty easy to link rural areas that wouldn't have enough population for a district alone into one large district, doing the same with two or more smaller cities for one large urban district produces relatively horrendous looking maps, the result is that you get several small cities swamped by rural voters).
 
Last edited:
Attila the Hun said:
I'd like to see it apply to legislature as well.
Click to expand...

Well, it's difficult there because of all the states that have few representatives, and the fact that people would be averse to larger districts. I've proposed doubling the number of representatives and dividing it up into 1/3 single member, 1/3 three member, and 1/3 five member districts, the single member districts going to the most rural areas (and states with only one or two representatives), the five member ones going to the most urban areas, and the three member districts in the middle. That way, the most rural areas would actually get districts half their current size, districts in suburban areas would only be slightly larger while giving more voice to political minorities, and urban districts which are tiny anyway would be very proportional. Also, the ideal system would be STV, since Americans would almost certainly be averse to any system where they could only vote for a party list.
 
With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal
Click to expand...
saw this on the first page .
This is more then just "one man one vote" idea - it's the idea that the BIG electoral states would not get ALL the campaigning.

I think that doesn't need too much explanation;especially if you live in a swing state like I do (Florida),
but lived in Maryland ( a non - swing state) many years.

I never, ever saw a presidential candidate campaigning back in Maryland - I mean they would pass thru,
and DC was just a hop down the Baltimore-Washington Pkwy; but no campaigning.

You know why - they didn't HAVE TO -as the votes of ALL the residents, didn't matter, just the fact the electoral college would get the entire states delegation

Now down here in ever sunny Floriduh, i am literally swamped with candidates coming to this swampy locale
Every vote counts!! It's a swing state; the battleground never stops.

What I'm saying is it would be nice to see:
1. regional primaries (enough of Iowa, and NH, already)
2. candidates for POTUS, actually campaigning in more states.
 
charver said:
My own suggestion would be to draft in an expert to devise the ideal electoral solution.

I nominate brother Watermark.
Click to expand...

The president is elected through IRV by all voters eligible in their state elections. My secondary proposal would be two-way runoff. The only justification for treating some subset of voters specially would be if they constituted a separate nation of some sort, and there's no such situation in the United States, certainly not in a way that state borders represent at all. You go over the border from Poland to Germany, and you run into very different sorts of people. Go over the border from Louisiana to Mississippi, and, what do you know? More hicks. Why confine them, for electoral purposes, to special geographical areas? And where people in the US are kind of different, they subgroups don't tend to be neatly bundled up into into convenient geographical areas, they tend to be mixed around, and in ways that, generally, have nothing at all to do with state borders.
 
Panda Hugger said:
Electoral college was the dumbest idea in the constitution. The 3/5 compromise and 21st amendment are close seconds.
Click to expand...

Did you mean 21st Amendment, or 18th? :D

Panda Hugger said:
A monarchy that is not a democracy: Saudi Arabia

A monarchy that is a democracy: the United Kingdom

A republic that is not a democracy: the People's Republic of China

A republic that is a democracy: Germany

Where do we want to be?
Click to expand...

Definitely the UK. If you would have used a different example of a democratic-republic I would have jumped on it, but not for Germany. That's a DR which will have to fail eventually based upon it's German population.
 
Superfreak said:
Seriously, you again spout off this? Try reading you ignorant shit. I said the sparsely populated states are. I said you are full of shit to say the RURAL areas/ States are. Are YOU going to pretend not to notice that hawaii, vt,nh,de, dc are ALSO overrepresented?

Bottom line, you have proven yourself a fool.
Click to expand...
And your a shrill, disreputable and intellectually dishonest jerk splitting pussy hairs between "rural", "small", or "less populated" to hysterically prove some inane point that is not only an aside to this discussion but is also one that no one really gives a rats ass about but you.

Christ, at least 3D is honest. He just wants to fuck Dems.
 
Attila the Hun said:
I'd like to see it apply to legislature as well.
Click to expand...
A proportional system may become necessary if the two party system can't end the gridlock. I don't fault either party, per se, for the grid lock. Conservatives and liberals have proven that they can be good faith negotiators. I blame Southern politicians and their nullificationist ideology for the gridlock.
 
Panda Hugger said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. It is true that rural areas can often effectively swamp urban areas, either because they're split among several rural majority districts in a gerrymandering scheme (Austin is big enough for it's own district, but has four different Republican representatives), or they're too small for their own district (pretty easy to link rural areas that wouldn't have enough population for a district alone into one large district, doing the same with two or more smaller cities for one large urban district produces relatively horrendous looking maps, the result is that you get several small cities swamped by rural voters).
Click to expand...
That is what I am referring to.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And your a shrill, disreputable and intellectually dishonest jerk splitting pussy hairs between "rural", "small", or "less populated" to hysterically prove some inane point that is not only an aside to this discussion but is also one that no one really gives a rats ass about but you.

Christ, at least 3D is honest. He just wants to fuck Dems.
Click to expand...

Well, there are some rather hot ones out in Hollywood that I can't ignore.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
A proportional system may become necessary if the two party system can't end the gridlock. I don't fault either party, per se, for the grid lock. Conservatives and liberals have proven that they can be good faith negotiators. I blame Southern politicians and their nullificationist ideology for the gridlock.
Click to expand...

To me a proportional system is simply a stepping stone to eliminating political parties all together.
 
evince said:
This system would work as designed if the republican party didn't CHEAT in all elections
Click to expand...
And if liberals just stuck to their ideas instead of insisting on being "liberal" at people. I might be more inclined to listen to some of their more worthwhile ideas.
 
the proof the republican party cheats in elections is court documented.

You can deny the evidence all you want .

it makes you an idiot to do so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top