Gerrymandering and the Winner-Takes-All Rule of the EC Have To Go

I think we are at an important crossroads. The polarization and ultra high partisanship shown by both major parties and in the nation as a whole could lead to our downfall. I really get peeved when I see republicans opposing something just because the democrats proposed it and vice versa. The democrats automatically opposing something only because the republicans proposed it. No thought whatsoever is given to the merits of the proposal, just who proposed it.


I’m fully on board to end gerrymandering. I have made several proposals, but they’re not going anywhere. I don’t think either party wants a fair election. Now being a representative republic and a union of the several states, I like the electoral college. But changes should be made. There’s two types of changes, those that can only be done by a constitutional amendment and those which each state legislature can change. I look to the latter, not the former. The Constitution give each state the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded. I have no problem awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to a majority winner of that state. 50% plus one vote. I do however have a problem awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to a plurality winner. That means more people voted against that candidate than for the candidate. If no candidate receives a majority, 50% plus one vote, then the state where this happened should either award their electoral votes via the congressional district method, i.e. Maine and Nebraska. Or even proportional would be fine based on the total popular votes received. Any other suggestions are welcomed.


That in my opinion would make the total vote more representational of the wants and wishes of the people of any particular state. These suggestions could be done by state legislatures in according to the Constitution without an amendment.


I’m open to a popular vote deciding but on certain conditions.

1 If a candidates receives 50% plus one vote, a majority of the popular vote that candidate is declared the winner. The same reasoning applies here, that more Americans voted against a candidate than for that candidate. This tells me the majority of Americans don't want that candidate.


2 If not, go to the electoral college, if a candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, 270 currently, then that candidate is declared the winner


3 If not, neither a majority winner in either the popular or electoral college, then let the House decide. The house is the people’s house and we elected those who serve in the house.


As a representative republic and a union of the several states, I don’t have a problem with the electoral college. I do however acknowledge it needs certain changes. We’re not a direct democracy, at least not yet. Another idea would be a hybrid of the parliamentary system and our presidential system. That is something else for another day.

 

Their vote counts in THE ELECTION IN WHICH THEY VOTED. It counted equally with everyone they voted with in the election in which they voted. It wasn't nullified their candidate lost.

 

You don't have a "right to vote" for the President. IF your state legislature decides to let you vote for whom your stated will cast it's electoral votes your only right is to have equal access to cast that vote but there is NO requirement they allow to you vote for those electors. AGAIN this fundamental principle of our government which you still seem to struggle with is that the STATES elect the President not the PEOPLE.

It's a function of our Republic too so what. The STATES will never pass an amendment to change the way the President is elected.

 

Deciding for others which of what they say is important or relevent to their point and what isn't is elitist as hell.

So is taking it upon yourself to determine what on the forum is 'BS'.

You could just as easily embolden or italicize or underline that which you wish to emphasize and respond to, instead of altering context that undermines your response.

But that would require you to either be right, or be a good debater...

The fact remains that most of the states responsible for institutionalizing the Electoral College were northern states that shortly thereafter sided with ending slavery in a big war. Your assertion that the EC had anything to do with slavery is nothing more than revisionism and an attempt to distract from and smear the reality that you can't get rid of the EC without creating a 'contract void' situation between FedGov and the states that would legitimize secession in the eyes of many.

Which all really just comes back to your elitism. The same overinflated sense of importance that causes you to think its appropriate to edit other peoples comments for content makes you hate the idea of not being able to impose your views on others by forcing them to adhere to the majority opinion of mob rule.

Quite frankly, I'd rather you just block me than to try to argue so dishonestly as to edit the inconvenient parts of my responses out to make it easier for your rebuttal. But then, elitists have never been known for being reasonable...

 

'Protection' isn't quite the right word. I appealed to you personally, on my own, instead of trying to cry to the mods (something I'll never do). Afaik, neither have you, so perhaps you can understand the distinction.

We call it individualism, or perhaps self determination.

And, Thank You for respecting my context.

 

Also:

‘God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.’ - Otto von Bismarck

 

And the worst part is that the EC isn't even used as was originally intended. The electors are supposed to be free agents who vote without influence from the voters.

 

The only information that an EC need report is the raw-count of the state's presidential vote.

It is a manipulation that has been known for two centuries, but became "acceptable". No logical reason why, but in the past no one questioned it because it suited both parties.

Our voting system requires a Massive Rethink - and no just the overt manipulations of the EC and Gerrymandering but the muney-muney-muney.

Which to my mind is the most blatant political transgression of legitimacy one can imagine. To influence the popular-vote by means of TV commercials as if it were "merchandise" ... !

 

What are you talking about. America has done the race to 270 since inception. Every single person who has won more than 270 electoral votes became the President.

Debatable. It might have truly been a mistake; however, everyone has agreed to judge the peaceful transition of power by this standard. If Clinton and Co. truly believed it was a mistake, they should have petitioned to have the rules changed.

But what was actually a key part of that original Constitution signed in 1787? This:

1. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Electoral College (EC) because the EC is determined by apportionment by the Census department (using a rather simple mathematical formula). Gerrymandering is mostly a local issue.

2. I may (or may not) necessarily agree with you one the popular vote, but I do agree with you on the winner-take-all system. Regardless, the losers already knew what they were getting into. They need to take their losses like adults.

 

I notice that the OP wasn't so concerned with Virginia's gerrymandered results.

 

About "1" above: Yes, everybody knows what you say above and I never said it did. SO WHAT? So nothing! (Except this key manipulation - the VOTE in the EC is NOT ALWAYS identical across states. That is, what transpires is that more EC-votes are accounted by fewer people-voting in some states than others! Which means, for instance, one-vote-and-a-half accounted in Alabama is worth the same as one-vote in California.)

About "2" above: Wrong! The purpose of any Truly Democratic county is a key-matter of the fairness in which it elects its representatives to high-office. No other democratic developed country employs an Electoral College to determine its Head of state. (See a list of those who do here!)

AND DID YOU KNOW THIS?
From here:The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

Just how many effing ways are we going to "screw-up" the simple popular-vote for the presidency? If we changed the "system" and only a majority of the national (honest) vote in each state designated a minority vote wins the election, then we cut the list to the first two and the country votes again a week later! After both candidates can have a televised debate.

What is wrong with two voting-days (on a Sunday* plus Monday-and-close-late) if necessary to get our democracy correctly&properly voting its Executive Head ... ?

*And please, no rubbish about interfering with Sunday morning religious-services. We are a country that was based upon the key-principle of "Separation of Church and State"! So, if need be, one goes to church on Sunday morning and votes Sunday-afternoon. (And ditto for Jews on Saturday.)

 

And to confuse matters further, there is this that popped-up in an Internet search from here::
U. S. Electoral College: How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated

Excerpt:

If the above is true, then there is no manipulation of the popular-vote if based fairly upon the number of members designated to the HofR.[/QUOTE]

Beyond this point, the reading gets very, very thick. Here: United States congressional apportionment

That document is very, very "hairy". I will not even attempt to explain it ...

PS: And for your further enjoyment: The United States Electoral College

 

Fewer people voting in Alabama versus California are due to the populations differences in Alabama versus California. As for "one-vote-and-a-half accounted in Alabama is worth the same as one-vote in California," that's just wrong. One vote in Alabama is one vote; one vote in California is one vote.

Irrelevant. We've already decided that electoral college was a fair metric for determining the peaceful transition of power. This is because (a long time ago), we've decided that the needs in places such as New York and California are different from the needs in Alabama and Colorado. We've also decided that the needs of minorities must be protected, regardless of what the majority wants.

In addition, the electoral process of other nations also has no relevance to the electoral process of the United States. It would probably be easier for us to have a one party system China (where my ancestors are from) because it would avoid the gridlock and fighting in Washington, but China is China and America is America.

There are only a handful of states that have decided to do this so I don't understand the issue.

There are lots of issues with having two voting days, which can be highly susceptible to manipulation (and not just voter fraud).

There isn't anything wrong with the current system. Those who really want to vote do; those who really could care less (myself included) don't.

 

You won't attempt explain it because you probably don't understand it, but I do. Congressional Representatives are allocated by using apportionment methods Apportionment Act of 1792 and 1911. The total apportionment will always result a total number representatives of 435. Apportionment is allocated using an equal apportionment method

A = P /sqrt(n(n+1)

This formula determines the priority value of each apportioned congressional seat.

If you find this complicated, think of it like the NBA draft. Each state is a team and based on their priority value, the state will me more likely to get an additional congressional seat.

 

It was part of the Great Compromise to balance the power between large state population wise versus small states which if fact had larger territory. Still valid and 38 states will never vote to change it.

 

How many times does it have to be stated before you get it,THERE IS NO THE POPULAR VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES. Unless we live in the same state or DC I do not vote in any election you voted in and you did not vote in any election I voted in. Your vote is not predicated on mine nor mine your. You and your fellow state citizens vote to decide to whom your states electoral college votes should go. Tallying up those 51 results is NOT an accurate reflection of what the result would be if there were just one big nationwide popular vote with us all voting in the same election. Got it now?

 

That has Absolutely NOTHING to do with my post.

My post was showing how that FAKE RW Narrative (about how many Counties Clinton Won) was DEBUNKED 1000x over.

Your response had ZERO to do with my post.

Yeah, The EC Result is NOT tied to the Nat. Popular Vote.

No kidding.

PS--The Ocean Contains Water, The Sun Rises in the East, Etc.

 

Sorry I missed your "counties" in this double discussion a so-called national popular vote.

 

For your information (from here):

Regardless, the present voting process of the Electoral College has five-times in history produced the result of the loser winning the presidency. In any "normal country", that would be considered a No-No and necessitate a correction.

Electing anyone to public-office is not a sports-game. It is the very foundation of any democracy, whether a Republic or not ...

 

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The winner of the Electoral College "wins the presidency." That's been the standard since forever. I don't know what other standard you're referring to.

 

I find that difficult to accept.

Voting for any public-office in any nation should depend upon the popular-vote and ONLY the popular vote. Let's not forget that most of these rules were made in an age a long, long time ago. People age - as do Constitutions.

People are replaced (by birth). Constitutions are changed by the will of the people. It's time we asked the people what they want - because the present process is highly-manipulative and thus un-democratic.

Methinks ...

 

That bit above about a "raving lunatic" is very wrong.

Goals set at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century are of historical interest only. The country was young and made some mistakes. Ours was the first democracy on earth. We made mistakes. Period.

Gerrymandering and the Electoral College were two very bad blunders. That point is obvious to any intelligent person. The EC having allowed to be falsely elected five presidents. Including the present dork in the Oval Office.

Honesty in the election of our political representatives on all three levels - local, state and national - is the only key to any credible democracy.

Let's finally open that door for Uncle Sam ...

 

I don't support the EC. My point is that Republicans surreptitiously support it, when in reality what we have is a bastardized version of it that helps the GOP stay in power.

 

With out the EC we wouldn't be the United States , for some reason people think values are the same in California as in Ohio.

 

I love it when democrats cry and whine about gerrymandering. It is the national pastime of the democrat party, they are the complete experts and gerrymandering. Without it they might not have hardly anyone in congress.