Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
I think the Electoral College needs to be refined to be more representative. Instead of winner take all in the states each state's EC votes should be split according to how it votes. For instance I live in Wisconsin. Why can't the votes be divided 6-4 or something?
Exactly the point, too. And it would make some fucking yahoos on the Democratic side forced to visit counties they would otherwise dismiss and crush with their own policies.
Agreed. I think we just need in-person, hand counted ballot voting with voter ID. If you can't even get off your ass and go vote, you are probably a low-information dummy who shouldn't be voting in this first place.
Exactly; the Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of state governments, whereas the House was designed to represent the interest of actual citizens.
Citizens were still allowed to contact the Senators to lobby them, but them being there to represent the state governments, was another part of the original check-and-balance system. We need to get back to that.
Deadlock in state legislatures and allegations of bribery left senate seats vacant for long periods of time, so the populists added direct election of senators to their platform. I don't see any good reason for direct election in modern times, though. Just increases possibility of fraud.
God damnit stop using the 2016 county map. I can see my county isn't red and by the msms own admission it is this year. Yes we need a county level electoral college for gubernatorial elections as well.
I agree completely. We are a Democratic Republic and the counties better represent who we are - NOT the states. Let Staten Island have an electoral vote, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, The Bronx - don't lump us into your crazy!
Constitutional Republic with a limited number of democratic processes. Not the same thing. That’s like saying a person with herpes IS herpes just because a small amount of the overall makeup is a virus.
This is constitutionality a state by state issue, and based upon populations, not county lines. The states could divide into electoral college districts. This could play into either parties hands depending on the ones in charge of district gerrymandering. May be a bad idea, and it would shift after every census. Dems would for sure slowly cheat this into their favor.
The states are already divided into districts - congressional districts. Each congressional district is entitled to an electoral vote + 2 statewide for the Senators.
eh... that would make things about as unfair to people living in big cities, as 'popular vote trumps all' would make it unfair to people living outside big cities.
Current system is pretty good - most people just stopped participating properly and holding government accountable.
That may be but that doesnt disprove the idea that the popular vs. Segmented vote can turn an election toward either political party. People have this sense that popular votes favor cities and democrats. Not necessarily, as we have a clear counterexample.
Then it wouldn't be an electoral college. The electoral college takes into account the population of the area. It would be a very broken system if 1,000 people had the same say as 1,000,000.
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.
Under that rule 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.
2 EV to the statewide winner, 1 EV for each congressional district winner.
This brings the election process closer to the people, and helps prevent the disenfranchisement of all Republicans living in deep blue states, and vice-versa for the Dems. Plus it would be a much more hands on, intricate campaign across a wider spectrum of states.
Not really. The states are sovereigns and why they are where the electors come from. But States should have county level electoral colleges for governor.
I'd like to see electoral college within the state level, and I'd like to see all states not do winner take all. That will kill cities from dominating and kill this ridiculous 51/49 scam they think they can keep getting away with.
I wish electoral college was applied to state elections. However, if we can pull election reform in the next 4 years, that map wouldn't look like that anymore.
If we're going to change the U.S. Constitution it should be that the elected U.S. representatives should appoint the U.S. Senators, the way it was originally.
This should be instituted immediately by all red states to prevent them from being targeted by Leftists fleeing the shitholes they created. Leftists will always flood urban centers, so with a state-level electoral college for state-wide/federal elections, they can squeeze as many Leftists as they want into newly built apartment complexes that have high "walk scores" who push for tax increases to build more "bike lanes." They're still going to be outvoted by the rest of the normal people in the state.
Texas, Idaho, Florida and Tennessee are prime examples of states that should do this today. Many others could implement this within the next year. It's probably too late for places like NC and AZ.
I think that's getting too granular by landmass and too variable by population. I think it should be based upon representative districts, just like Nebraska and Maine do, but for every state, including assigning the two remaining to the state's cumulative vote.
Canada has that (or pretty close, not counties but their equivalent of our congressional districts) and ended up with Trudeau even though he lost the popular vote. You dont know that this will work better.
Yes, why not? If you actively contribute to the state, whether by paying taxes or by service in an armed or emergency organization, you should have more say.
Here's an idea I kind of stole it from what Democrats did to the Native Americans.
We kick their ass give them a small chunk of land. Decide we want that small chunk of land kick their ass again and move them to another piece of land. Eventually we can have them in a trailer park in the middle of Death Valley.
That's true, but on the other hand, we wouldnt have needed someone like Trump to clean up all these messes, because we would have had presidents more responsive to the people and the states - and ultimately more in line with the constitution.
And BTW, our retarded populace is exactly the reason why a wholly unqualified candidate like Obama went the distance.
Yep. The Electoral College is functional, but I feel it needs to be further refined.
The pop vote defense is absolute garbage.
The average person is stupid. There's even more people who are retarded. They get to vote.
Hence the EC.
The only bad thing about the EC is that it’s all or nothing in most states. Most states are red besides the major cities.
— George Carlin
I think the Electoral College needs to be refined to be more representative. Instead of winner take all in the states each state's EC votes should be split according to how it votes. For instance I live in Wisconsin. Why can't the votes be divided 6-4 or something?
Exactly the point, too. And it would make some fucking yahoos on the Democratic side forced to visit counties they would otherwise dismiss and crush with their own policies.
Can we see that with the fraudulent votes removed?
https://www.clker.com/cliparts/3/B/6/M/X/g/red-map-usa-png.svg
Stop posting fake news. Here's the real map https://media.thedonald.win/post/AqFxTmKf.jpeg
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME GUAC
This will never not be funny!
This is the way.
Nice, thanks!!
Hmm... mmm... no.
It would be all red except Los angles Portland and NYC. Might even be all red.
No. State level is good. Concentrates the fraud into a few areas.
Agreed. I think we just need in-person, hand counted ballot voting with voter ID. If you can't even get off your ass and go vote, you are probably a low-information dummy who shouldn't be voting in this first place.
Senators should be picked by state legislatures- why did we change that?
Exactly; the Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of state governments, whereas the House was designed to represent the interest of actual citizens.
Citizens were still allowed to contact the Senators to lobby them, but them being there to represent the state governments, was another part of the original check-and-balance system. We need to get back to that.
Deadlock in state legislatures and allegations of bribery left senate seats vacant for long periods of time, so the populists added direct election of senators to their platform. I don't see any good reason for direct election in modern times, though. Just increases possibility of fraud.
God damnit stop using the 2016 county map. I can see my county isn't red and by the msms own admission it is this year. Yes we need a county level electoral college for gubernatorial elections as well.
I agree completely. We are a Democratic Republic and the counties better represent who we are - NOT the states. Let Staten Island have an electoral vote, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, The Bronx - don't lump us into your crazy!
Constitutional Republic with a limited number of democratic processes. Not the same thing. That’s like saying a person with herpes IS herpes just because a small amount of the overall makeup is a virus.
Never really looked at NYC counties.. are the boroughs all their own counties?
YEP!
They artificially capped number of representatives. Otherwise it would be.
This is constitutionality a state by state issue, and based upon populations, not county lines. The states could divide into electoral college districts. This could play into either parties hands depending on the ones in charge of district gerrymandering. May be a bad idea, and it would shift after every census. Dems would for sure slowly cheat this into their favor.
The states are already divided into districts - congressional districts. Each congressional district is entitled to an electoral vote + 2 statewide for the Senators.
eh... that would make things about as unfair to people living in big cities, as 'popular vote trumps all' would make it unfair to people living outside big cities.
Current system is pretty good - most people just stopped participating properly and holding government accountable.
Might as well be a popular vote at that point. A county of 2,000 people wouldn't have the say of a county with 2,000,000. Leave it alone.
Not true. Canada has this system and trudeau won the presidency without winning the popular vote.
That's because they also commited fraud in Canada
That may be but that doesnt disprove the idea that the popular vs. Segmented vote can turn an election toward either political party. People have this sense that popular votes favor cities and democrats. Not necessarily, as we have a clear counterexample.
No, the point would be that they WOULD have the exact same say. 1000 people in one county would have the same say as 100000 in another.
Then it wouldn't be an electoral college. The electoral college takes into account the population of the area. It would be a very broken system if 1,000 people had the same say as 1,000,000.
No, because then they’d just make cities a bajilion counties.
No.
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.
Under that rule 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.
I always thought it should be by CD.
2 EV to the statewide winner, 1 EV for each congressional district winner.
This brings the election process closer to the people, and helps prevent the disenfranchisement of all Republicans living in deep blue states, and vice-versa for the Dems. Plus it would be a much more hands on, intricate campaign across a wider spectrum of states.
Not really. The states are sovereigns and why they are where the electors come from. But States should have county level electoral colleges for governor.
I'd like to see electoral college within the state level, and I'd like to see all states not do winner take all. That will kill cities from dominating and kill this ridiculous 51/49 scam they think they can keep getting away with.
I wish electoral college was applied to state elections. However, if we can pull election reform in the next 4 years, that map wouldn't look like that anymore.
By County Electoral College would be a Huge Win.
I've been thinking about this for about a year.
It makes perfect sense
The Washington one is inaccurate there is no way Kittitas county would vote blue.
Yes, it should be on the state level. Win the most counties, win the state. Applies to president. senate and governor.
For congress, you'd bring it to a county level.
Where can I buy a flag with this beautiful image? 👌
Each state should have their own electoral college that is county level. Each county weighted equally.
And that's how you decide the state.
No. Don't mess with it.
If we're going to change the U.S. Constitution it should be that the elected U.S. representatives should appoint the U.S. Senators, the way it was originally.
I was thinking about this the other day. I actually makes sense and is still true to the idea of the electoral college.
When it comes to federal level elections, definitely
Should be 2 ec base on state popular vote all other base on district.
This should be instituted immediately by all red states to prevent them from being targeted by Leftists fleeing the shitholes they created. Leftists will always flood urban centers, so with a state-level electoral college for state-wide/federal elections, they can squeeze as many Leftists as they want into newly built apartment complexes that have high "walk scores" who push for tax increases to build more "bike lanes." They're still going to be outvoted by the rest of the normal people in the state.
Texas, Idaho, Florida and Tennessee are prime examples of states that should do this today. Many others could implement this within the next year. It's probably too late for places like NC and AZ.
I think that's getting too granular by landmass and too variable by population. I think it should be based upon representative districts, just like Nebraska and Maine do, but for every state, including assigning the two remaining to the state's cumulative vote.
Wouldn’t Democrats then just create all kinds of bullshit counties?
This is the way.
Razorfist has long spoken about the need for a state level EC. You can now see why this is an awesome idea.
Just give me voter id. That'll fix it
That would be AMAZING. WE COULD HOLD ALL OURS ACCOUNTABLE EASILY
Canada has that (or pretty close, not counties but their equivalent of our congressional districts) and ended up with Trudeau even though he lost the popular vote. You dont know that this will work better.
Democrat retards can go fuck themselves. This is America.
Can we add in only net tax payers too? Founding fathers had the idea with only land owners.
Yes, why not? If you actively contribute to the state, whether by paying taxes or by service in an armed or emergency organization, you should have more say.
Good grief. Makes me ashamed to be from Massachusetts. At least in other states it’s just pockets of commies
Not sure...might be too easy to jerry-mander the county borders.
Here's an idea I kind of stole it from what Democrats did to the Native Americans.
We kick their ass give them a small chunk of land. Decide we want that small chunk of land kick their ass again and move them to another piece of land. Eventually we can have them in a trailer park in the middle of Death Valley.
better yet: remove the populace from directly voting on the president, have people elect state legislature and those state legislature pick electors
That's true, but on the other hand, we wouldnt have needed someone like Trump to clean up all these messes, because we would have had presidents more responsive to the people and the states - and ultimately more in line with the constitution.
And BTW, our retarded populace is exactly the reason why a wholly unqualified candidate like Obama went the distance.
This is more like it is in Canada and it is RETARDED DO NOT DO THIS
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT! THIS IS MY FIRST EXPLOSIVE POST ON HERE AND I FINALLY SURPASSED 3K IN UPVOTES. YESTERDAY IT WAS JUST 1K.