Its time for EACH STATE to have a County Electoral College so corrupt cities can't pull down the entire state.
(media.patriots.win)
posted ago by 50dollarbonus
+3731 / -0
Comments (182)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
Front
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
I've honestly kind of always wondered why this wasn't already a thing...
Founding fathers had an idea that cities would be a thing, but could not imagine the hambeasts they are today. State electoral colleges need to be a thing.
You have to realize back then Philadelphia and NYC were small by today's standards.
Yep. Originally, the founders expected a member of the House to represent 30,000 people eventually climbing to one for every 50.000 people. (Check out the unratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment.)
Based on raw population numbers of the US, we're well over 700.000 people per representative.
I'd love to see it go back. Make each individual House member less important, and therefore harder to buy off a majority.
I disagree, mostly because it would create the same rural/urban divide power issues the founders foresaw and sought to prevent.
A total of roughly 6.6K representatives would be needed. NYC alone having 166 representatives. LA proper? 79. Chicago? 54.
In a body where majority rule is required? The disparity would be larger than it is already.
Take a look at Federalist 10 and the role of factions. Madison argues for a large republic so that every faction is small relative to the whole, and thus less influential.
The founders foresaw and planned into the constitution. They knew big cities would overwhelm rural areas if left unchecked.
They just couldn't see the scale of it.
Luckily because of technology, politicians are obsolete. Steaming, social sites, blockchain voting, budget smart contracts are the future of governance.
Political offices are not supposed to be a lotto ticket set for life
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, but that'll never happen without a complete re-write of the FAR and DFAR, which, good fucking luck getting the political will to do that.
Start small, local board of education, etc
Oof savage.
🌶
80% of the country were farmers then. Shit started going sideways in WWII WHEN THE RATIO WAS 50/50 and started going in the cities favor
I wish we could tell them who ruined what they built, they'd be like "I knew it!"
This should still be the case. Senators are supposed to represent their State, not the people.
Widespread telework and national internet coverage like starlink may encourage depopulation of cities.
The urban distribution is so lopsided that it's not a matter of Big and Small states like the founders thought. It's about states with huge cities and those without. Just look at Illinois. Red except for Chicago mean Solid Blue. That kind of imbalance, within a single territory, would be hard to imagine for our founders.
The Founders were probably aware of that possibility since I believe Aristotle wrote how all the Greeks only lived in city-states in his Politics.
—Aristotle, Politics, Volume I. Book VII. Chapter IV. Paragraph III. translated by Bemjamin Jowett, Oxford, 1885
I believe Thomas Jefferson of Virginia desired America to be comprised of rural Farmers, organized into shires, or counties, that is, towns of around a hundred just as in England, but I possess none of that Father's scripture as proof, unfortunately.
Yeah they were aware of mob mentality and the problem with cities. Just didn't think things would get this big..
1776 - 2.5 million population 2020 - 330 million population
Remember they were building a country for only 13 colonies.
Biggest problem is the house 65 representatives in 1776 and now 435. The census is in the constitution from 1776 because every 10 years they would add representatives so it stayed at 1 per 65,000 to 100,000.
In 1929 they locked that at 435, so we went from 1 per 100,000 to today 1 to 700,000 plus.
Repealing the reapportionment act of 1929 would give us our power back in the house. Allowing us to create new parties and destroy this two party system...
in the 1800's we had multiple parties and they had power in the house with representatives..
They even discussed allowing big cities to be broken off for Senators, cause of representation.. Remember though the house used to elect the State Senator. So all your state's federal house representatives would elect the two state senators.
Cause the senate was to be the upper house, to be a check on stupidity..
This has been a big problem for a long time..
The senate should also go back to being state appointed so they return to defending states rights. At this point they don’t give a fuck about their state because they are just out there fighting for National programs.
Was not aware (or more likely had forgotten after learning it about 20 years ago) of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. That's absolutely crazy. Thanks for the inspiration to dig into something new.
Well once I submit my ideas on the pedes writing a voting bill I'm going to work on that one next. Waiting on the mods to get back to me on how to post this 10 page document, so we can start working on writing our own election voting bill...
We cannot allow the Politicians to write this they created this problem..
2nd Constitutional Convention would iron all this out.
Both sides have been avoiding a US CC as it could lead to a lot more changes than anyone wants. Pandora's box -- you need to damn sure what will happen before you open it.
I think it would spark a civil war / revolution + counterrevolution as both sides attempt to seize power and change the government to fit their image rather than trying to fix the one with have now.
Declassify it all and then open that box!
Read the following comments are correct. I fact the republicans actually held two thirds of the state and could not get a Convention of The States. They could not agree on what to change in a Constitution that works today.This could lead to some crazy changes to the Constitution. In the Bill of Right there were originally 12 proposed Amendments, two got tossed. The Bill of Rights was proposed in the original debate over our current Constitution. Since the Bill of Rights were ratified the Constitution has only been amended 17 times, with two actually canceling each other out. That was the prohibition act. BTW term limits exist now for the house of Congress, it is called a VOTE.
17th amendment
Not necessarily. It would bring balance, democrats couldn't campaign on socialists policies and identity politics.
Technically they'd have to run on good policy and implement it while in office, which would prohibit them from winning.
They wouldnt be able to win off the backs of young/low information voters. It is the sole reason for their numbers.
They might still, but they wouldn't be able to steal an entire state with it.
but... without socialist policies and identity politics, the democrats have nothing else except more war and abolish the police.
they would just cheat like they do now.
Love this idea on so many levels. Would almost say one county one vote.
They'd just make more counties.
That is the point...decentralize power. Population centers could divide up so increase their power base, but they can't because that would take their chief source of funding, taxes, away from their direct control and put it in the hands of somebody else. That somebody else is then responsible to their constituents, not the previous holder.
They would literally be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Not by county, but by congressional district. That’s how the EC is currently denominated anyway. It would just function in all 50 how it does in Maine/Nebraska. I think this would be an amazing reform that I don’t even necessarily think would favor either party.
I don't think it would favor either party: see my post just below this.
But, as the OP suggests: it would be an effective limitation on fraud by the political "machines" that seem to be endemic in large urban areas.
As things stand, it would favor the Republican party, because the Democrats currently only win by cheating.
Long-term, it would force broader appeal, and bring so-called "flyover" states back into play.
The winner of usa is the one that wins more than 50%+ points (electoral college votes) with rules for when you dont have more than 50%+ electoral college votes.
To make state votes closer to electoral college, the winner of 50%+ of the congretional districts of the state wins all state electoral college votes.
Then you would need to try to emulate the less than 50%+ of votes rules, maybe if more than 2 candidates won congretional district, the winner of most districts, assuming only the top 3 had votes is the winner, if there is still a tie or only two candidates had electoral college votes, the top candidate by popular vote (assuming only the top 3 or top 2 by congretional district had votes) is the winner
I'd like that. I with the "Nation Popular Vote Compact" people would suggest something like that. The intention and the upside of the Electoral college is the balancing of power for smaller regions. I don't see why states should be winner take all, under any system.
Even allocating electoral proportionally by state popular vote makes a lot of sense. It still allows the same city/rural problem within states, but at least the less populous areas of city-dominated states aren't totally disenfranchised.
Of course, with district-level EC allocation, the left would just cry harder about gerrymandering, which they think is a total scam that is the only reason Republicans have any power. (Which, to be fair, isn't the craziest of their beliefs, even fit hey are crazy about it.)
So would proportional-by-state allocation be so bad? And any single state could do that. But they don't, they want the national popular vote. Because California doesn't want to let any of their votes turn blue. They want the power to turn all of Colorado's votes blue.
LOL
A middle ground: implement the method used by Maine and Nebraska, nationwide. The popular vote in each Congressional district is worth 1 EV, and the state-wide popular vote is worth 2 EVs.
I read an article a few years ago by someone who analyzed every Presidential election back to 1960, applying this methodology. He found that if the same people voted, the outcome would have been the same. The electoral vote count for each candidate would have changed, but not enough to affect the outcome.
HOWEVER (and this is a big one), that assumes the same people would have voted. If the EVs were distributed by Congressional districts, it would change campaign strategies. It would affect the spending priorities of incumbents. It would change voter behavior, because voters in both red and blue states would not feel their vote was cancelled out by an overwhelming majority elsewhere in the state.
NY or CA would never do that, because Democrats control the legislature. Conversely, TX would never do it, because Republicans control the legislature.
It would require a Constitutional Amendment to implement it nationwide. But even if you could get 2/3rds of the US House and Senate to vote for proposing the amendment, I don't believe you would get 38 states to ratify it.
At least 13 blue states would recognize it would be a Democrat's nightmare.
states decide how their votes are cast, not the Constitution
That's why I stated that a Constitutional Amendment would be required:
US Senators were once elected by state legislatures. The 17th Amendment superseded that clause in the Constitution, electing Senators instead by popular vote.
You actually don't need to force a constitutional amendment. Just push for it in enough states. I don't remember where I saw it, but statistically, once about 1/3 of the states adopt a new ruling, the rest of the states tend to adopt it fairly quickly. This is the strategy that the Left took when pushing for recognition of gay marriage, and the one they're using to push for marijuana legalization, immigration "reform," and the "National Popular Vote Initiative" which this strategy would directly compete against.
If we can get as few as 20 states to adopt the new technique, the remaining 30 become fairly easy to turn. If we pick our battles strategically, it should result in losing very few electoral votes before the switch brings everything back into balance. The ideal outcome would be pushing it through within the next 3 years, before another Presidential election comes up. A 7-year plan would be more viable, but gives us that incredibly risky election in the middle.
The biggest hurdle, in my opinion, is that whichever party currently owns a state will be extremely resistant to adopting the strategy and giving up electoral votes to their opponent.
This would be corrupted, too. Congressional redistricting is how the Repubs prefer to cheat right now.
Both parties gerrymander legislative districts. That's why it was so important for Republicans to hang on to state legislatures in 2020.
That would be another Amendment worth considering: an consistent method to draw Congressional districts. There have been a lot of proposals.
I found this one interesting:
https://bdistricting.org/2010/
This describes how he draws boundaries:
https://bdistricting.org/about.html
It's done with an algorithm that puts census blocks into districts, then calculates the average distance to the center of districts. Repeat until the average distance appears to be minimized. You can even participate, by running the client on your computer and upload the results.
The website compiles the best results for every state: congressional district, state house, state senate. You can compare his "best" map to the current map.
Of course, the hardest problem to solve would be agreement on an algorithm. For comparison, this site links to other proposals.
What kind of electoral college inside electoral college?
This site has the 2016 election under alternative rules:
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
At 2016 election trump got 306 and hillary 232.
Under a rule where each state works like maine/nebraska (winner of congressional district, get 1 point and winner of entire state gets 2 points) trump get 290 and hillary get 248
Under a rule where the winner of each congressional district get +1 electoral college vote and the one that wilns more than 50% of congressional districts get +2 (dont know what happens when someone has less than 50% of them) trump get 297 and hillary get 241
The first rule hillary get +16 and trump lost -16, at second rule hillary get +9 and trump lose 9
But a third rule can be created, its the first rule I said here, but there arent +2 votes at each state because of senators. The idea of this rule is that the two senators thing that happens at previous two rules, is be based at entire state information (either popular vote or amount of districts won) and here this kind of stuff is removed.
Trump got 30 states and hillary 21 (because dc), thats 60 votes for trump and 42 for hillary, removing that from first rule (the votes based at senators) you have 230 for trump and hillary get 206, trump win. He won with 52.75% of the votes, when using the same rule but with senators thing (the first rule I talked about) he got 53.9% of votes. As a comparison at normal 2016 election rules he got 56.87% of votes, 56.69% if nebrask and maine use the rule used at all other states.
You could also have a fourth rule where you still have senators votes and the winner of 50%+ of all congretional districts get ALL votes.
If some candidate don't have more than 50%+ of votes, I am assuming the winner (that will get all the electoral votes) will be the one would win most congretional districts assuming only the votes of top 3 candidates that won, got votes during general election, if only two candidates won districts or if its still a tie, then popular vote assuming only those at top 3 (or top 2, if only two candidates got electoral college votes) were at the election, is selected.
The result would be Trump 328, Clinton 210. Ties in Maine, New Hampshire, and Nevada all went to Clinton by previous rule. Thats +22 to trump and -22 to hillary.
There is a fifith rule that is like fourth one, but withouth the +2 electoral college votes because of senator. The results of that one would need to be calculated.
The fifth rule would most closely emuate a electoral college inside electoral college. Electoral College inception. But without the 50%+ to win stuff, if you want that part of electoral college too, you would need to change the rule to somehow emulate it.
The right half of Long Island SHOULD BE BRIGHT FUCKING RED. It was in 2016, and it's even redder now.
Source: Based fucking Long Islander.
Same with the top right county of VT, both 2016 and 2020 elections. Not sure what this map is, but it SHOULD BE EVEN REDDER
edit: AND most of Maine, NH. The 2016 county election map is much better
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w3BxQCFYWfU/WC0BK4frq9I/AAAAAAAADYo/Ng9_TQNIuH8sWARqxY9xRwQThnIAUT5bACLcB/s1600/Election-2016-Results-By-County-Closeup.jpg
Long Island is a shit hole. I lived there for 7 years. Moving to a red/purple state was the single biggest catalyst for my success in life.
Western Long Island is a shithole. Eastern has some really dope parts. You must've been in a non-dope part.
I lived in north shore Suffolk county, both in the Huntington and Port Jefferson areas. Both areas I experienced break ins, one while I was sleeping in my own bed.
Stony Brook graduates get the luxury of living in an illegal basement apartment working lower paying jobs than many other red states. Alternatively, you could commute 2 hours each way on the LIRR to the city if you want a good paycheck.
Then, you get to live in a town cram packed with crime or rude people and spent 40 minutes to drive 15 miles. If you live with your parents maybe you can put together enough money to buy a shack in Ronkonkoma for the cost of a kidney.
Long Island just like NYC where it is designed for rich old people who inherited their homes to suppress the younger generations from building wealth.
There was zero quality about Long Island that was at all desirable to me. The leftist in-laws want us to move back. Not a chance.
We just have to get Trump to put it on his “to do” list! It will be done.
Big cities are a cancer. Such tiny parts of the country yet they think they can control everything. Disgusting cesspools of junkies and homeless people.
The corrupt DemocRATs in corrupt counties will never agree to these non-corrupt ideals
I forget the source, but once about 1/3 of the country adopts a new paradigm, the rest of the country tends to accept it pretty quickly. This was the strategy used to push gay marriage, and is the strategy being used to push for marijuana legalization and the "national popular vote" initiative. If we could get as few as 20 states to adopt this voting system, the other 30 would fold fairly quickly.
For strategic purposes, we would want mostly solid states. Red states where we have the most influence, and solid blue states which would be easier to convince to turn (since they're not likely to give up as much ground) but this isn't likely to be enough. We might be able to also push for strategic trades, such as if Califonia and Texas could be convinced, or Colorado, which is often used as a petri dish for proposed national strategies.
It would also completely negate the type of fraud we're seeing this year. Fraud becomes a lot more difficult when you have to flip half the counties in the state than just a few precincts in a city.
Exactly, this is the thing people don't get about the Electoral College vs popular vote. By spreading the vote around, you limit the reach of fraud. So the damage of any one city committing fraud is limited to their state, not the national total.
illinois has entered the chat
They used to I think, but the law was changed
Presidential EVs were originally determined by votes in state legislatures. That's close to a regional (but not necessarily county) representation, but I think it was still "winner takes all".
By 1836, all states aside from South Carolina had switched to the state-wide popular vote to choose Presidential electors. SC joined the rest in 1860.
Fun fact: only 10 states chose electors in the first Presidential election. The NY legislature did not choose electors, and NC and RI had not yet ratified the Constitution.
Cool, thanks!
This is the answer. How can we ever compete with the population centers? I’m not even mad at them. They’re doing what’s best for them, but Dallas rules don’t work for Marfa!
Take a look at the National Electoral College Compact - https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The erosion of the Electoral College has been happening for a long time. The populous does not understand the sovereignty of States, and have been moving the Republic towards a democracy. Democracies fail, that is just a fact. The erosion of States Rights occurred with the 17th Amendment, and the State Legislature lost their voice in the Federal Legislature.
County Electoral College is a novel idea, but the libtards know they would lose power, so it will never happen.
They understand just fine. But if you have a national popular vote, then you only have to rig one election.
Imagine trying to investigate fraud in Los Angeles or San Francisco. Both cities are so corrupt we'd never get any headway. Pennsylvania is bad enough, and they're mixed.
It would be the end of the Democrat party, pure and simple.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I’ve been saying this for years. Get rid of the ‘winner take all’ rule. It’s not in the constitution. CA gets more voting power from having lots of conservatives in the state, yet ALL the electoral votes go to democrats.
Cities want to threaten rural counties with commerce. Counties should threaten cities with no food or transportation or water which cities steal by the reservoir.
Honestly, the flyover states should already start threatening the coastal states with embargo.
This isn't this election by county. Most of NY is red. I'd like it if my state at minimum had a state level electoral college for gubernatorial races. That would be a step in the right path but I'd like to see upstate separate from NYC altogether
Jacksonville is an entire county, won't work everywhere by its a good idea nonetheless
THIS
Heres looking at you washington state.
I would not do 1 vote per county. That disenfranchises pretty much everyone
I would do what Nebraska does perhaps
By congressional district
I'm sure that there would be a lot more red without all the fraudulent votes.
What is this map?
It does not reflect even the fraudulent results of the 2020 election.
There are multiple counties on that map that should be red right now that are blue???
I was JUST thinking about this yesterday!
One election day. Voter ID. Finger dipping. Prison if ballots are lost or destroyed.
In the year 2020, we can come up with some way better and more secure than the US mail for absentee voting. For people with a reason. Not just because they request it.
What's this map from? It can't be from the past 2 elections, because my county went blue in both of them yet it's red here.
This doesn't sound terrible.
Amen!! Been saying this for a long time.
This needs to be third on our list. First get through this. Next, force all legislation to be voted by all, not just the ones that are there. (Most get passed when all people are coming back from the weekend.) This would reduce the number of laws that get passed in the House from thousands to hundreds. Then this.
Nice idea wouldnt work after the gerrymandering
amen to that, wouldnt have a democrat in the whitehouse for the next 100 years.
Commas can be your friend.
States rights. The states would need to enact legislation to make this happen, and they won't.
Not going to happen, the United States Constitution is very clear how the electoral process works. One per representative and one for each senator. Even this was a compromise to get the smaller states to ratify the Constitution.
Yeah, this is important. There would need to be a way to make sure that the cities can't just break themselves into more counties, but also allow some flexibility to allow for some changes that go with demographic trends. From a geography standpoint, I suppose counties are a solid unit since there tends to be a good amount of consistency within counties. But I guess if counties were made permanent, then I suppose this could work. I do question the county system. Why do counties even exist? Why are cities part of counties in most of the country? Seems unnecessary to me, but I suppose I have much to learn.
I feel that the main thing that would keep counties from breaking up into smaller counties is their loss of taxes. Property taxes and sales taxes are the main income for counties. I don't think that there are too many counties out there that would willingly give up a third or more of their tax base to help out EC numbers.
I have been thinking the same thing. Wouldn’t it be nice.
CATO Institute: Should We Reform the Electoral College?
Good job Utah, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.
Suffolk County should be red on this map. I’ve called several New York reps about switching to County Electoral College voting and it’s awkward how many didn’t know what I was talking about.
This is like looking at the cancer in a human body. The cancer is in blue.
Where would we be if all states split their EC votes like Maine and Nebraska?
Its funny, because before this election I kinda though we did.
I'm going a few steps further, we're doing to implement this in my house.
Leave it to the states to decide, as the constitution already provides for.
And how about we fix our fucked up gerrymandered congressional districts and just align them with counties as well...
Iowa isn't that blue, what year was this?