Popular Vote vs. Electoral College and non-voting Americans

[Donner]

I would like it if all states organized their electoral votes the way Nebraska and Maine do, so that each candidate receives the percentage of electoral votes that correspond to their win of the popular vote.

This.

 

[summerteeth]

I would like it if all states organized their electoral votes the way Nebraska and Maine do, so that each candidate receives the percentage of electoral votes that correspond to their win of the popular vote.

...that's not what Maine and Nebraska do. They give two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote and then the other half are separated by Congressional districts. This would probably favor Republicans even more....

 

[Donner]

It should be proportional. This ******** that gives a candidate all of the electoral votes for one state regardless if they win by 1 vote or 10 million is not representative or fair or even remotely democratic.

 

[SV Fan]

It should be proportional. This ******** that gives a candidate all of the electoral votes for one state regardless if they win by 1 vote or 10 million is not representative or fair or even remotely democratic.

I agree with this, beyond that they should bring it down to a proportion by 2 decimal places(ie Candidate A 57.42% Candidate B 40.37% Candidate C 2.10%, so if a state has 10 electoral votes Candidate A gets 5.74 electoral votes, Can B gets 4.04 and Can C gets 0.21 and left over can be thrown on the winning candidate)

...that's not what Maine and Nebraska do. They give two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote and then the other half are separated by Congressional districts. This would probably favor Republicans even more....

Election by congressional district would be even worse then the current system

 

[Fincher]

It should be proportional. This ******** that gives a candidate all of the electoral votes for one state regardless if they win by 1 vote or 10 million is not representative or fair or even remotely democratic.

That is the biggest problem with it.

On a slightly related note, what would happen if each party presented two candidates to be voted for in the general election? In retrospect it seems designed to do little more than offering people (theoretically) Marco Rubio vs Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders; it seems like a logical way to avoid extremes being the only option as well as two suboptimal options being the only ones available.

It would also lessen the possibility that a single loud (and unqualified) voice could dominate party primaries where the media covers one spectacle for ratings and ends up diminishing the relevance of other candidates due to the opportunity cost of covering multiple candidates.

The problem with increasing the number of candidates is that it further splits the votes, so that it's easier for a candidate who's hated by a majority of the population to win because his group of voters is bigger than the other separated groups.

If the electoral college were eliminated (and I'm not saying it would happen), I'd want instant runoff voting. That way, someone can put a third party candidate as their first pick without "wasting" their vote, and whoever gets it in the end is the candidate with the most general support instead of the one with the largest sub-section of the population having that candidate as their first choice.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

On a slightly related note, what would happen if each party presented two candidates to be voted for in the general election? In retrospect it seems designed to do little more than offering people (theoretically) Marco Rubio vs Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders; it seems like a logical way to avoid extremes being the only option as well as two suboptimal options being the only ones available.

It would also lessen the possibility that a single loud (and unqualified) voice could dominate party primaries where the media covers one spectacle for ratings and ends up diminishing the relevance of other candidates due to the opportunity cost of covering multiple candidates.

That happened in 1860 and it resulted in the Democrats getting slaughtered, half the country seceding, and Civil War within 6 months.

Also, keep in mind that the winner needs to get 270 EVs. More candidates winning EVs make that more and more unlikely. So the chances improve substantially of an election occurring where no candidate gets 270 EVs, and it ends up going to the House of Representatives to choose the new president. A good example of this occurring was in 1824, where there were four candidates, Andrew Jackson won but wasn't able to get the majority of EVs, then the House who hated Jackson picked John Quincy Adams as president instead. In your specific scenario, Marco Rubio would almost certainly be the next president.

 

[summerteeth]

It should be proportional. This ******** that gives a candidate all of the electoral votes for one state regardless if they win by 1 vote or 10 million is not representative or fair or even remotely democratic.

...it's about Federalism. It's all in the name United States of America. We are about a collection of states that are united together. It's not about California and New York City making all the decisions for the country. Different states face different pressures and issues and their voice is heard and represented through the Electoral College. See the rust belt for instance, they had grievances and they were heard. That people in California, like me, aren't really in touch with the problems that they face in other parts of the country. Heck, I'm not even in touch with the issues if you go north and inland in my own state.

I also think that the idea of a potential national recount that could happen and may have happened in this election if that were the case should put this idea to disband the Electoral College to bed.

 

[2kt09]

I thought you said that should be discussed in the EC thread?

But fine, how about these problems:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...u-s-keep-or-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/

Okay, so lets hear your counter argument, why is the EC so great?

The WashPo article made that argument.
So, this minnpost:
1) 7% is indeed a small percentage as so many continue to get so caught up in trying to predict the EC
2) The general election campaigning starts with 3-4 months left on the clock. So, they'd have to go to each state and give each state equal attention within that time frame. Trump didn't skip out on those 3 states.
3) You'd have to predict the swing states. In this election, Florida wasn't the "have to" since it was won fairly early.
4) The president's main objective is to think in terms of the entire nation in the first place.
5) Right, goes back to the whole mob rule issue.
6) We're still waiting on this hypothetical scenario.
7) 3rd parties tipping the scale is a plus in my eyes. I want the party system dismantled because this obviously wouldn't be a complaint in the first place.
8) No home field advantage? This is one of those damned if you do / don't as far as refuting. I can see both sides to this.
9) Refer back to 6.
10) Hilarious.

 

[SV Fan]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true

Clinton just broke 2M+ vote lead on Trump tonight(all that being said it looks like a large amount of those California votes are drying up so not sure how much more it is going to get beyond that)