Do you favor Electoral College be tied to congressional districts

[SG1]

Do you favor it?

What are some of the downsides to this?

[streetglideok]

I think it better represents us. I for one do not like that our votes got lumped in with those mentally insane people to our north.

[osok-308]

I think it better represents us. I for one do not like that our votes got lumped in with those mentally insane people to our north.
One of those advantages is that States like New York or California which actually do have conservative voters will not just be "take away" states, voters in the minority (not ethnic minorities, but idealistic minority) would actually be enticed to get out and vote, because their vote now would matter. However I believe that in order for it to work, it should be implemented nationwide.

[Bailey Guns]

Overall, I'm in favor of the EC. The idea of tying the EC votes to congressional district is pretty interesting, though. It might take away a lot of the influence of large, urban areas that are currently dominated by democrats in a lot of states...maybe even CO. On the other hand, I suppose it could work the other way, too. At first glance I'd probably be in favor.

[Kraven251]

It would be a better representation of the people living there, but I am curious what that would have meant for the previous election since O still won the popular vote.

[merl]

given the gerrymandering of districts I'd be against it. At least lumped by state the party in power cannot redraw lines to their advantage

[Zundfolge]

given the gerrymandering of districts I'd be against it. At least lumped by state the party in power cannot redraw lines to their advantage

^This.

And the fact that I trust our founding fathers more than any modern politician. If they believed the EC was the fairest way to run an election, than by God that's all I needed to know.

[Motley]

It would get rid of 'battleground states', Texas would be in play for the Democrats, and it would make President's get elected without a majority of the popular vote. I read somewhere that if some blue states (PA, WY, VA) did this then Mitt Romney would have won the election even though he lost the popular vote by 5 million.

Would everyone here be OK with Hillary winning in 2016 and only getting 48% of the popular vote against a Christie/Paul 51% (roughly 5 million voters)? In the long term, I cannot see how this is a good idea.

[Rucker61]

^This.

And the fact that I trust our founding fathers more than any modern politician. If they believed the EC was the fairest way to run an election, than by God that's all I needed to know.

^ this. Although it would mean that we wouldn't be inundated with campaigning each election.

[streetglideok]

We already do not follow the founding fathers intent on the electoral college and presidential voting. The original system was changed many moons ago to what it is now. Also remember, Bush was elected without winning the popular vote as well. All things aside, allowing the electoral votes to go by district, and legalizing the electorate to vote how they want, would be closer in line to what the authors intent was.

[tonantius]

I think the electoral college is a good thing. I have done spreadsheet analyses of the last few elections as to whether the vote count matters using congressional district versus 'winner take all'. The total count is about the same but the chance of cheating getting an election by cherry picking one county goes to nil. In other words, the election is more fair. It also gives the individual districts in primarily democrat states a chance to cast a republican electoral vote and vice versa in republican states.

[Bailey Guns]

There's really no such thing as a "popular vote". Sure it's a number that represents how many voted for each candidate, but it means nothing on a national scale. I don't give a rat's ass about the popular vote.

[streetglideok]

There's really no such thing as a "popular vote". Sure it's a number that represents how many voted for each candidate, but it means nothing on a national scale. I don't give a rat's ass about the popular vote.
^This
Popular vote isn't used to elect people. If it was, we'd had Al Gore in 2001. The EC was meant to allow a group to vote for president, and if need be, vote against what the people want. This is what should have happened last month, but too many are blind.

[Jamnanc]

Have you considered a instant rundown election where you would be able to put your first choice, your second choice, then your third choice. In this way people could vote their conscience like maybe the Constitution party or libertarian without throwing away their vote.

[SG1]

Have you considered a instant rundown election where you would be able to put your first choice, your second choice, then your third choice. In this way people could vote their conscience like maybe the Constitution party or libertarian without throwing away their vote.


I have always wonderd of this..

[ChadAmberg]

I say they need to follow the Constitution, where it says 1 representative per 30k people. How can you be represented well when in many cases its one rep per millions of people? So what if they need to have 11 thousand members of Congress. That's probably a benefit since nothing will ever get done again!

[Brock Landers]

Warning: I have thought about this issue a lot, and this post is going to be long-winded. Proceed at your own risk.

In my opinion there are several reasons why this is a bad idea. It goes without saying that this system would favor conservative candidates at the moment, but in my view it also presents a serious risk of backfiring on the GOP.

1. From a conservative perspective, this is a short term fix to a long term problem. The talk of the 2012 election has been how the GOP needs to reach out and attract minorities since the non-white population is growing much faster than the electorate as a whole. Tying EVs to Congressional districts would further alienate urban (read: minority) voters by arbitrarily decreasing their voting power. In addition, the only reason this change would benefit the GOP at all is because the 2010 election put the party in control of redistricting after the census. The election in 2020 will be a Presidential election and will likely attract much larger Democratic turnout than the 2010 midterms. It’s also worth running that if Hillary runs and wins in 2016, she will be the incumbent that year. This system would be a disaster for Republicans if Democrats control redistricting after a landslide.


2. It’s highly likely that changing to this system would not last long and would only speed up a transition towards electing the President via popular vote. Al Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 but losing the election is one thing, but if this system had been in place in 2012, Romney would have won the election despite losing by four percentage points. I don’t see Americans being willing to put up with a system where you can win the popular vote that handily and still lose. This personally doesn’t bother me that much because I think popular vote is a much fairer system, but I digress…


3. It would be illegal. Tying votes to gerrymandered Congressional districts would blatantly disenfranchise minority voters and violate the Voting Rights Act. The GOP is already being shit on (fairly or not) for voter suppression, and this would add serious fuel to that fire.

4. I really feel that making this change would be morally wrong. It’s okay to disagree with someone politically and even disregard their opinion, but I just can’t see a justification for having Person A’s vote be worth more than Person B’s. The inequity of this format would be apparent, and it would be a big stain on our democratic process. The negative PR would be even more harmful for the GOP if the only states doing this were swing states controlled by Republicans.

Despite the fact that I think this would be an atrocious idea, I like the fact that it’s inspiring debate about the electoral system. As I noted above, I really think popular vote is the fairest system when it comes to electing the President. It makes no sense to me that Presidential candidates do an extensive tour of swing states while basically ignoring the rest of the country. Further, the small town guy in Wyoming (or the flaming San Fran liberal, for that matter) doesn’t really have much incentive to make it to the polls when he knows the statewide result is predetermined. There is no reason to have Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and a few other swing states deciding every election and getting all the campaign attention. It may be an unrealistic fantasy but I would like to see Obama campaigning in small town Mississippi and Romney going to major cities. That may seem crazy but it would be a lot more likely if they were forced to fight for every vote, regardless of geographic location.

[SG1]

Warning: I have thought about this issue a lot, and this post is going to be long-winded. Proceed at your own risk.

In my opinion there are several reasons why this is a bad idea. It goes without saying that this system would favor conservative candidates at the moment, but in my view it also presents a serious risk of backfiring on the GOP.

1. From a conservative perspective, this is a short term fix to a long term problem. The talk of the 2012 election has been how the GOP needs to reach out and attract minorities since the non-white population is growing much faster than the electorate as a whole. Tying EVs to Congressional districts would further alienate urban (read: minority) voters by arbitrarily decreasing their voting power. In addition, the only reason this change would benefit the GOP at all is because the 2010 election put the party in control of redistricting after the census. The election in 2020 will be a Presidential election and will likely attract much larger Democratic turnout than the 2010 midterms. It’s also worth running that if Hillary runs and wins in 2016, she will be the incumbent that year. This system would be a disaster for Republicans if Democrats control redistricting after a landslide.


2. It’s highly likely that changing to this system would not last long and would only speed up a transition towards electing the President via popular vote. Al Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 but losing the election is one thing, but if this system had been in place in 2012, Romney would have won the election despite losing by four percentage points. I don’t see Americans being willing to put up with a system where you can win the popular vote that handily and still lose. This personally doesn’t bother me that much because I think popular vote is a much fairer system, but I digress…


3. It would be illegal. Tying votes to gerrymandered Congressional districts would blatantly disenfranchise minority voters and violate the Voting Rights Act. The GOP is already being shit on (fairly or not) for voter suppression, and this would add serious fuel to that fire.

4. I really feel that making this change would be morally wrong. It’s okay to disagree with someone politically and even disregard their opinion, but I just can’t see a justification for having Person A’s vote be worth more than Person B’s. The inequity of this format would be apparent, and it would be a big stain on our democratic process. The negative PR would be even more harmful for the GOP if the only states doing this were swing states controlled by Republicans.

Despite the fact that I think this would be an atrocious idea, I like the fact that it’s inspiring debate about the electoral system. As I noted above, I really think popular vote is the fairest system when it comes to electing the President. It makes no sense to me that Presidential candidates do an extensive tour of swing states while basically ignoring the rest of the country. Further, the small town guy in Wyoming (or the flaming San Fran liberal, for that matter) doesn’t really have much incentive to make it to the polls when he knows the statewide result is predetermined. There is no reason to have Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and a few other swing states deciding every election and getting all the campaign attention. It may be an unrealistic fantasy but I would like to see Obama campaigning in small town Mississippi and Romney going to major cities. That may seem crazy but it would be a lot more likely if they were forced to fight for every vote, regardless of geographic location.

AS for the non-white growing faster, that is due in large part of the welfare system..

as for the GOP being shitted on...get used to it.. we are right they are wrong and both sides know..so instend of countering it with lies as they always have but is not working anymore cry racism..which is failing to work as well... we are right on the issues all we need to do if find the right guy with is rand paul.