Electoral college

[creditcardfree]

LAL, I feel like you are misunderstanding why a swing state is a swing state. The state itself has a similar number of registered voters in both parties. Most people tend to stay with their party when voting. So when the numbers are similar and electoral college votes are up for grabs it is a big deal to campaigns, thus why the focus their time and energy there. They want their party to get the majority in that state.

If the number of registered voters in a state is highly Democrat the numbers simply state that a Democrat would win those electoral votes, it's a numbers game for campaigns. I don't think that a popular vote would change where they campaign much. They would still look at the numbers and see that their party has a majority somewhere and skip those places.

As I have said earlier in the thread, it would be fine for states to allocate their electoral college votes by voter turnout. I am not for a mandate on a Federal level. It is up to each state to determine how their representatives will represent their constituents.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

The congress eagle has a more even distribution with the senate and the house. And even the house apparently it's not been fairly districted. But it's controlled by the party in power. So the districting lines aren't fair. Is the congress perfect? But the way it stands now the electoral college is a lot more unfair than congress. At least within your own state you can vote for a senator and congress person and it's within a state. So at least everyone in every state has some sort of say. You can vote for your congress person or senator. Right now Eagle as it stands my vote in a non-swing state might as well be tossed out and only those votes in PA, OH, FL, etc are the only ones that matter. Everyone else can go get screwed. Explain why my vote choosing my congress person and senator is okay but my vote for president doesn't matter?

CCF I get the swing states. But that's why a lot of states, actually most states are ignored in the presidential elections. Only a few states are actually in play. Other than those few states everyone else might as well go fly a kite for the amount of say they have.

I feel like people in swing states like the electoral college more than those not in it. Those in non swing states I feel are pretty apathetic because they aren't involved in the process at all. And yes I felt this way back in 2000 and complained to my DH my vote didn't matter then. It's just becoming more apparent now.

[creditcardfree]

CCF I get the swing states. But that's why a lot of states, actually most states are ignored in the presidential elections. Only a few states are actually in play. Other than those few states everyone else might as well go fly a kite for the amount of say they have.

I feel like people in swing states like the electoral college more than those not in it. Those in non swing states I feel are pretty apathetic because they aren't involved in the process at all. And yes I felt this way back in 2000 and complained to my DH my vote didn't matter then. It's just becoming more apparent now.

You are involved in the process! You vote in a primary which is a popular vote. You vote for your senators and representatives, who often become electors, by popular vote. The popular vote is still a way for your representatives to know what their constituents think about the candidates. So if you don't vote in a Presidential election your voice isn't heard at all.

The United States is a Democratic Republic and the electoral college is part of the checks and balances. Those checks and balances are very important.

I do understand how it feels. I lived in a non swing state before.

We have much more influence locally than Federal. Those local elections are very important. Much more goes on from a legislative perspective in our state legislatures and city offices than at the federal level.

[Eagle]

The congress eagle has a more even distribution with the senate and the house. And even the house apparently it's not been fairly districted. But it's controlled by the party in power. So the districting lines aren't fair. Is the congress perfect? But the way it stands now the electoral college is a lot more unfair than congress. At least within your own state you can vote for a senator and congress person and it's within a state. So at least everyone in every state has some sort of say. You can vote for your congress person or senator. Right now Eagle as it stands my vote in a non-swing state might as well be tossed out and only those votes in PA, OH, FL, etc are the only ones that matter. Everyone else can go get screwed. Explain why my vote choosing my congress person and senator is okay but my vote for president doesn't matter?

Every vote matters. If you want your vote to have more weight move to another state. Swing states change with each election cycle.

I'm convinced the system we have in place is not perfect but it does provide checks and balances. As a Democratic Republic it's one of the best governmental systems in the world.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The congress eagle has a more even distribution with the senate and the house. And even the house apparently it's not been fairly districted. But it's controlled by the party in power. So the districting lines aren't fair. Is the congress perfect? But the way it stands now the electoral college is a lot more unfair than congress. At least within your own state you can vote for a senator and congress person and it's within a state. So at least everyone in every state has some sort of say. You can vote for your congress person or senator. Right now Eagle as it stands my vote in a non-swing state might as well be tossed out and only those votes in PA, OH, FL, etc are the only ones that matter. Everyone else can go get screwed. Explain why my vote choosing my congress person and senator is okay but my vote for president doesn't matter?

CCF I get the swing states. But that's why a lot of states, actually most states are ignored in the presidential elections. Only a few states are actually in play. Other than those few states everyone else might as well go fly a kite for the amount of say they have.

I feel like people in swing states like the electoral college more than those not in it. Those in non swing states I feel are pretty apathetic because they aren't involved in the process at all. And yes I felt this way back in 2000 and complained to my DH my vote didn't matter then. It's just becoming more apparent now.

Why would your vote matter in a pure popular vote election? For example if this election was pure popular vote, Hillary won by 2 million. Your single solitary vote still would not have made a difference.

I would argue that, depending, you vote matters MORE in an EC system, depending on your state.

[Singuy]

Why would your vote matter in a pure popular vote election? For example if this election was pure popular vote, Hillary won by 2 million. Your single solitary vote still would not have made a difference.

I would argue that, depending, you vote matters MORE in an EC system, depending on your state.

I don't understand why we are arguing who or how a vote should matter more or less. Every vote should matter just the same. Popular votes insures that. The candidates must speak to more than 50% of the population in order to win..not to a couple of swing states where winner takes all.

I am still not understanding what kind of "checks and balances" the EC provide. Every vote should count exactly as 1/U.S population. I don't understand how "NYC and some big cities in Cali" will overrun the determine the election. Are people destined to vote just for their party even if the party comes out and say "first day in office, I will launch a nuke and blow up the U.S"?. If that's the case then the stupid bias toward each party needs to go away first.

I honestly don't understand why we have a two party system that believes in very different things. Either abolish the two party system or split the U.S into two countries. I mean 50% of the people wants a small government and a life that's like "back in the days" while the other 50% wants a futuristic clean energy big government sci-fi world..and yet we need to force these two type of people to live a country where one side is afraid of being suppressed by the other side. Can you imagine a business having a structure like this? The company wouldn't last 10 mins.

[Eagle]

I don't understand why we are arguing who or how a vote should matter more or less. Every vote should matter just the same. Popular votes insures that. The candidates must speak to more than 50% of the population in order to win.. not to a couple of swing states where winner takes all.

It’s not a couple of swing states. It’s typically 10+ states. And they invariably shift each election. Thus the term “swing” states. Again, only about 53% of the country voted in 2016. So really it just takes about 26-28% of the vote to win the election.

This is an exaggerated map but it gets the point across if we were to have a purely democratic vote (without the EC) in the USA for president. A bit of humor this morning.




Since my response is very long I'm going to split it up in several posts.

[Eagle]

I am still not understanding what kind of "checks and balances" the EC provide. Every vote should count exactly as 1/U.S population. I don't understand how "NYC and some big cities in Cali" will overrun the determine the election. Are people destined to vote just for their party even if the party comes out and say "first day in office, I will launch a nuke and blow up the U.S"?. If that's the case then the stupid bias toward each party needs to go away first.

Why should every vote by every citizen matter just the same in every state? I’ve thought about that more… It's really basic math.

If every vote mattered just the same then the only states that would matter come election time would be the urban population centers.

In other words California (38 Million+), Texas (26 Million+), Florida (19 Million+) and New York (19 million+) as sates with population base would be the centers for campaigns.

Truth be told, you’d need to include Illinois (12.5 Million+), Pennsylvania (12.5 Million+), Ohio (11.5 Million+), Georgia (9.5 Million+), Michigan(9.5 Million+), North Carolina (9.5 Million+), New Jersey (9 Million+), Virginia (8 Million+) as states with 8 million + population.

This would add up to roughly 184 million people in 12 states. So the other 38 states would likely be ignored.

[Eagle]

I honestly don't understand why we have a two party system that believes in very different things. Either abolish the two party system or split the U.S into two countries. I mean 50% of the people wants a small government and a life that's like "back in the days" while the other 50% wants a futuristic clean energy big government sci-fi world..and yet we need to force these two type of people to live a country where one side is afraid of being suppressed by the other side. Can you imagine a business having a structure like this? The company wouldn't last 10 mins.

This is an argument made by both sides of the fence. Particularly during election years. Some people say: "If you don't like what's going on here then leave!"

The truth is that those living in the country side or conservative areas need those living in urban areas and with more liberal leanings. The same is true vice versa.

Your suggestion to either abolish the two party system or split the U.S. in two countries is not realistic. Why?

The two party system is rigged. Do a basic search on the CPD. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is an independent nonprofit corporation established in 1987 under the joint sponsorship of both the Democratic and Republican political parties in the United States. The Commission's exclusion of third party candidates from the debates has been the subject of controversy and legal challenges.

In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a candidate to be included in the national debates he or she must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.

This pretty much excludes third party candidates representing the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc. to take part in the debates.

[Eagle]

I honestly don't understand why we have a two party system that believes in very different things. Either abolish the two party system or split the U.S into two countries. I mean 50% of the people wants a small government and a life that's like "back in the days" while the other 50% wants a futuristic clean energy big government sci-fi world..and yet we need to force these two type of people to live a country where one side is afraid of being suppressed by the other side. Can you imagine a business having a structure like this? The company wouldn't last 10 mins.

How would you split up the country? Socially or ideologically speaking it might make some sense... But economically and politically I think you hit the nail on the head... The country wouldn't last 10 minutes if it were split.

Could the West Coast and North East Coast survive without the mid-states?

Here's the 2012 electoral college map for example.




Or perhaps by counties then? I think not.

Here’s an example of the counties that voted in 2008. Would this be the split you are speaking of?



Here’s an example of the counties that voted in 2016. Perhaps this would be the split you are speaking of?

[StormRichards]

How would you split up the country?

.... West/East Coasts

It didn't work out well for Tupac & Biggie

[Singuy]

I am not for splitting the country, but I am just dumbfounded by how polarizing our choices are. Where is the hybrid of the two? Where are the conservative democrats or the liberal republicans? No such thing as taking good ideas for BOTH sides and implementing them giving EVERYONE what they want?

Trump could of been that (was a democrat for a lot of his life and was pretty liberal when it comes to social issues) if he wasn't so polarizing when it comes to racism/sexism/ all the other labels he received.

Also should the candidate even speak to people who wants to be off the grid anyways? Should people cry about not having adequate public transportation when they literally live in the middle of no where? Sounds like a personal choice to me. If 90% of Americans want to live in the bigger cities with all the amenities of a civilized world and 10% likes huge land/little government intervention/ and 1800 living..why should the 10% gets to cry about not being heard?

[LivingAlmostLarge]

But if you split the electoral vote like NB and ME wouldn't it allow all states to compete? No one would win all of texas or california's electoral vote, they'd have to campaign to win a proportionate amount. And please don't say CA or NY or TX is entirely red or blue it's not. And perhaps more people would vote if they thought their vote would influence the electoral vote.

Further why not split into those states who pay taxes and those who take them from the federal government. It's been proven blue states subsidize the red states. Makes you wonder why are blue states so liberal and into helping others but the red states who TAKE money are so about personal responsibility and every man for himself but take more than they pay out.

I think cutting medicare and SS and privitizing it will hurt more red state and lower income people. But they won't realize it till it's done.

Why should every vote by every citizen matter just the same in every state? I’ve thought about that more… It's really basic math.

If every vote mattered just the same then the only states that would matter come election time would be the urban population centers.

In other words California (38 Million+), Texas (26 Million+), Florida (19 Million+) and New York (19 million+) as sates with population base would be the centers for campaigns.

Truth be told, you’d need to include Illinois (12.5 Million+), Pennsylvania (12.5 Million+), Ohio (11.5 Million+), Georgia (9.5 Million+), Michigan(9.5 Million+), North Carolina (9.5 Million+), New Jersey (9 Million+), Virginia (8 Million+) as states with 8 million + population.

This would add up to roughly 184 million people in 12 states. So the other 38 states would likely be ignored.