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

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by LafayetteBis, Nov 10, 2019.

  1. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You dont understand the Constitution or the USA, the Senate was formed for state rights, the house for people's rights
     
  2. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Personality does not matter in this discussion.

    How one votes and its consequences are what matters. Meaning any manipulation whatsoever of the voting system is considered wrongful. Which is why, after WW2, and rebuilding their political-systems, not one EU-country adopted either Gerrymandering or the Electoral College. The head of state in Europe is determined simply by whichever party-leader wins the popular-vote election and thus obtains a majority of the parliamentary vote.

    And believe me, after WW1, the Europeans gave the matter considerable thought before deciding how their parliament should function. None decided to adopt the American voting systems - and for good reasons.

    We should rethink ours as well ...
     
  3. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    am not sure whether Gerrymandered districts affect the outcome of the popular vote for Presidents within a state. If someone could enlighten me on this, it would be appreciated.

    The effect is indirect. If there is no doubt that your local House member will be reelected you don't need to vote for or against him. If there is no doubt also about which Presidential candidate will win your state you don't need to vote for or against him. If there's a competitive race for the House in your district you vote for that and while you're there for President.
    If there was one more suspenseful House race in Michigan for example in 2016 left-leaning voters might have gone to the polls in great numbers in that district, voted for the House candidate and also for Hillary, flipping the state's EC votes.
    That's the reason I want them divided, so small details don't matter.
    The most important detail in 2016 (and some other years) is that Republican Senate candidates won in the swing states Trump pulled out narrowly (and a Democrat won by 7000 where Hillary won by 3000). That's the coattail effect in reverse.
     
  4. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for an impressive treatise on my question. It really helps understand why we're not really a "democracy" in the fullest sense of the word, but a strategic compromise with a bag full of oblique substitutes for voting & selecting our political winners. When our framing fathers were alive & creating our Constitution, 98% of our male population were farmers, & only a small percentage of those were literate. Today, over 99% of our population is literate, & less than 2% are farmers. We are a very different nation than the one our founding fathers gave birth to. Yet we still use a system of voting designed to prevent the voice of the average citizen from being heard directly or having a direct impact politically. In my personal view, the Electoral College is outdated, obsolete & an insult to the intelligence of the American voter, as well as a prime impediment to American democracy. And, Gerrymandering of voting districts by empowered political parties is another core problem with advancing the say of American democracy. Both need to be abandoned by law for the sake of individual freedom & democracy.
     
    LafayetteBis likes this.
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True enough - but the Supremes were thinking about a fundamental rule of governance of the nation.

    Such fundamental rulings must come from elected-officials by means of passing new-law, and not the interpretation of existing law by the Supreme Court.

    To my mind, the legal aspect of "fair-voting procedures" revolves on the "first-past-the-post-rule" whereby the EC functions and the Gerrymandering of voting-districts. As regards the elections of officials to national representation (Presidency, Congress) that law regarding voting-regulations must be rewritten by Congress because they are inherently unfair.

    So, yes, what states do at their own level regarding voting-regulations is their business*, and not of the Federal Government. But it could or should be a matter for Supreme Court because it affects the rights of voters within the states when expressed nationally. The question is one of separation of powers between the states and Congress ...

    *Having said that, the SC has ruled on such matters as people of colour (non-whites) who were forbidden the vote in some states .(Making it illegal.) Meaning the discrimination inherent to voting procedures IS a matter for the SC to consider. (Which is why I do not understand that the SC does not tackle states employing the "first past the post rule get all-the-votes". Which is a clear manipulation of the democratic-right to a fair and impartial vote.)
     
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, but who "let him through the door of the Oval Office"? Not we-the-sheeple.

    We-the-sheeple voted clearly for Hillary and gave her a very serious plurality of 2% of the popular-vote!

    We need to get-to-teaching this present generation in high-school proper Civics Courses. And, to my mind, adopt the measure that students must pass the course in order to graduate from high-school!

    From off the Internet here:
    At least that is something not all that bad. But, I am not sure how good it will be. Let's presume all students taking it pass the exam on that subject.

    Now let's make that a requirement for graduation. Of course, that sort of stipulation will make it a state matter. Meaning that the kids can retake the exam if having failed.

    The Federal Government gifting the state schools for implementing the course could also make passage of the course a requirement for education. And that is already happening. See here:
    Don't get me wrong - the US spends plenty on secondary-education in state schools. But the shock of 2008 has had a profound negative impact upon funding. See infographic here ...
     
  7. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So your new plan is indoctrination?
     
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    US support of school-funding compared to "other expenditures" (from Wikipedia):

    [​IMG]

    Education in dark red at 7%

    'Nuff said .... ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
  9. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who would protect europe ?
     
  10. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meaning what it says it means. The electoral college is involved only in the election of presidents. It has nothing to do with members of congress because they are elected by their respective states. Gerrymandering is corruption but it has nothing to do with national elections. It is for the states to control. The electoral college is described in the constitution directly. Getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. Your best bet is do what you have to do to win elections and quit worrying about the details that apply to everybody.
     
  11. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I just did the math again. It came to 257 for Hillary, 256 for Trump and 25 either for other candidates or unpledged (because no candidate earned the last EV in the state). This would be decided most likely by the House of Representatives as it should be.
    The numbers keep changing but no tabulation can get Hillary past 259 EVs (270 needed to win).
    She's at least 4 million votes shy of 50%. No candidate has ever gotten 50% and lost, but it could have happened this year either way.
    That would be a problem.
     
  12. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Total results of the 2012 popular-vote in America from here:
    Read the above and weep. The "counting" is of manipulated-votes in the EC. For me, they don't "count".

    They are, however, the stark reality of the manipulation of the Popular-Vote in America (since the 19th century, Amendment 12 of the Constitution in 1812) prescribing the usage of an Electoral College in each state** (in which the popular-vote is manipulated* by its first-past-the-post-rule to produce an "EC" vote.)

    Which is employed by NO OTHER MAJOR DEMOCRACY ONE EARTH ....

    *Manipulated how? The first-past-the-post EC-rule negates the votes of all losers and the entire EC-vote of each state goes ONLY TO THE SO-CALLED MAJORITY VOTE "WINNER".
    ** In an age when there were no trains and getting popular-vote results to Congress was an arduous excursion to DC by all members of a state's EC.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2019
  13. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Didnt you post a thread you wanted civic courses taught more in the USA?

    Well why dont you take one.. the popular vote is not in US law for president or for gay marriage or for drugs..etc...
     
  14. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess that is as true as saying the alternative of not doing it leaves the question of which unrepresentative fascist will become the president
     
  15. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mine was more logical. But why play with fire when you can just pass a law that says California gets to pick the President. That way, the collective socialist agenda can be guaranteed. And the individual can just take a hike.
     
  16. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ridiculous. Numerically, the entire county votes - and one state happens to vote the winner more often than other states is simply due to the fact that it the most populous in the nation and therefore quite likely to coordinate with the popular-vote outcome. Such an outcome, however is not always the case.

    But that does not mean that that state, and that state alone, causes any particular particular party-candidate to win more often than others. There are numerous incidents in which the majority vote in California was the opposite of the eventual winner.

    See here ...
     
  17. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no "popular vote" for the president. The president is chosen by electors appointed by the several states.
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes the person who gets the most votes wins the States electoral vote, that is for whom the State votes.
     
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't know why so many struggle with that important concept of our federal government.
     
  20. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because they want to rule their fellow man?
     
  21. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Of course it does, California cant even get its house in order, almost dead last fiscally sound , a sanctuary state that harbors illegals, they cant even clean up the brush to prevent wildfires..

    You want these guys to destroy the country?
     
  22. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So this is how the Electoral votes should be distributed based on the state percentages this weekend:
    Maine: 2-2
    New Hampshire 2-2
    Rhode Island 2-2
    Nevada 3-3
    Minnesota 5-5
    Michigan 8-8
    Wisconsin 5-5
    Pennsylvania 10-10
    That's 37-37 in tie states.
    Next the 3-vote states:
    DC: Hillary 3-0
    Vermont: Hillary 2-1
    Delaware: Hillary 2-1
    North Dakota Trump 2-1
    South Dakota: Trump 2-1
    Montana: Trump 2-1
    Wyoming: Trump 2-1
    Alaska: Trump 2-1
    That's 12-12 to extend the tie to 49-49.
    In the 2 remaining 4-vote states we see that neither candidate earned the 4th vote. This will continue. In some cases a third candidate earned the vote. In some states no one earned it.
    So we have:
    Idaho: Trump 2-1-1
    Hawaii: Hillary 2-1-1
    They're now tied 52-52 with 2 free Electors.
    In the 5-vote states we have:
    Nebraska: Trump 3-2
    West Virginia: Trump 3-1-1
    New Mexico 2-2-1
    That puts Trump ahead 60-57 with 4 votes for others.
    In the 4 remaining 6-vote states we have:
    Mississippi: Trump 4-2
    Arkansas: Trump 4-2
    Kansas: Trump 3-2-1
    Iowa: Trump 3-2-1
    Utah: Trump 3-2-1
    The last vote in Utah goes to Evan McMullin.
    That makes it Trump 77-67 with 7 votes for others.
    In the 7 vote states we have:
    Connecticutt: Hillary 4-3
    Oregon: Hillary 4-3
    Oklahoma Trump 5-2
    That makes it Trump 87-77 with 7 votes for others.
    In the 8-vote states we have:
    Kentucky: Trump 5-3
    Louisiana: Trump 5-3
    Trump now leads 97-83 with 7 votes for others.
    In the 9-vote states we have:
    Colorado: 4-4-1
    South Carolina: Trump 5-4
    Alabama: Trump 6-3
    That makes it Trump 112-94 and 8 votes for others.
    In the remaining 10-vote states we have:
    Missouri: Trump 6-4
    Maryland: Hillary 6-3-1
    That makes it Trump 121-104 with 9 votes to others.
    In the 11-vote states we have:
    Tennessee: Trump 7-4
    Arizona: 5-5-1
    Massachusetts: Hillary 7-3-1
    Indiana: Trump 6-4-1
    That makes it Trump 142-124 with 12 votes elsewhere.
    In the only 12 vote state we have:
    Washington: Hillary 7-5.
    That makes Trump 147-131 with 12 elsewhere.
    In the only 13-vote state we get:
    Virginia: Hillary 7-6
    That makes Trump 153-138 with 12 elsewhere.
    In the only 14-vote state we get:
    New Jersey: Hillary 8-6
    That makes it Trump 159-146 with those 12 votes elsewhere growing in importance.
    In the only 15-vote state we get:
    North Carolina: 7-7-1
    That makes it Trump 166-153 and exactly 13 other votes (but several assigned to McMullin or Johnson, some at liberty).
    The remaining 16-vote state gives us:
    Georgia: Trump 8-7-1
    We now have Trump 174-160 and 14 others.
    The only 18-vote state is Ohio:
    Ohio: Trump 9-8-1
    That makes it Trump 183-168 and 15 others.
    There's only one 20 vote state:
    Illinois: Hillary 11-8-1
    That makes it Trump 191-179 and 16 for others.
    2 states have 29 EVs:
    Florida: 14-14-1
    New York: Hillary 16-11-2
    That makes it Trump 216-209 and 19 others.
    One state has 38 EVs:
    Texas: Trump 20-17-1
    That makes it Trump 236-226 and 20 others.
    Finally we have California:
    Hillary 32-17-6
    So we get Hillary 258, Trump 253 and about 26 votes scattered.
    I missed one somewhere but the point is this election has no winner, and deserves no winner.
     
  23. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The job of an elector is to elect.
     
  24. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Neither can it at any time whatsoever in the future.

    I find it very wrong that because fellow-Americans today have not a sufficient historical learning about the Electoral College and how it evolved. They keep with their nonsensical support of the presently illicit electoral methods.

    I suggest they read from the Original Plan as described in WikiPedia here: United States Electoral College
    The above link is what this debate is all about. That is, an "original error" must be corrected and the "people" allowed to elect their political representatives purely, simply and directly by means of a popular-voting process!

    The Electoral College should be a procedural mechanism for gathering the popular-vote of each state and submitting it to the National Legislature in DC - and nothing could be more simpler or more correct.

    Only if, however, the states could
    factually determine "American"-voters by means of a proper National System of Identification. Which is obtained at birth or upon permanent access to the country leading to the right-to-vote in American elections. That system of identification should be ADN-based and thus verifiable.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
  25. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The treaty has a clause that allows it to be changed. Perhaps you should pursue that course.
     

Share This Page