Ideal election system

Masterhawk · Oct 22, 2016

Our current election system works like this: You don't actually vote for president, you vote for electors who have pledged to vote for your candidate. States with bigger populations have more electors than states with less people. But here's where many believe that there's a problem with our current system; winning more than half of a state's votes gets you all of the electors. So winning a state with 18 delegates by only 1,000 over 50% will win you the entire state (except in mane and nebraska where it's by district rather than the entire state), it doesn't matter by how much, all that matters is that you win a majority vote in that state. This system puts the election in the hands of only a few states called "swing states". There were also four times in US history where the candidate which won the popular vote lost the election.

A district voting system would probably be a little better than a WTA system. Currently, Nebraska and Maine are the only states which use this system. This system would apply the WTA system not to the entire state but to the congressional districts and 2 electors (representing the 2 senators) would vote for the candate which won the most votes in the state. This system would most certainly benefit republicans in California which has 53 districts, 14 of which have a republican majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_congressional_districts Currently, these fourteen districts are drowned out by the democratic majority and their votes don't matter. Similarly, Texas has 36 districts, 11 of which are democratic majority. There are also 2 liberal districts in tennessee, 1 libral district in Loisianna, 1 conservative district in maryland, 1 conservative district and 2 swing districts in Illinois, 9 conservative districts in michigan, and 6 red districts and 3 swing districts in New york.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_partisan_voting_index You get the idea, a lot of voters are being drowned out by the majority in safe states. The only problem with this voting system is the possibility that gerrymandering can affect the rpesults of the election. To fix this, each state should get a nonpartisan commission to draw the congressional districts and get approved by the state's federal court

The last voting system is the national popular vote. States will hand all of their electoral votes to the candidate which wins the popular vote. So far, 11 states have signed the national popular vote, all of which are safe blue states (likely a response to Bush's unpopularity and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact There were attempts for Arizona and Colorado to sign but these have failed. Probably the only way for red states to pass the NPV is for trump to win the popular vote but Hillary wins the electoral college. Opponents say that it will cause candidates to only focus their campaigns on big cities. However, only 19.48% of the US population lives in the top 100 cities https://ballotpedia.org/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population and people living in cities don't tend to have a different political alignment than their rural counterparts. Another concern is that the NPV could make a victory possible by winning the vote of every American in just 146 counties Half Of The United States Lives In These Counties - Business Insider some states don't have any of these counties. However, this is based on the assumption that these counties vote differently than the other two thousand and something counties and that a candidate could win the vote of EVERY person in these counties. Another problem with that argument is that this can easily be turned around when you consider the fact that some states like Arizona and Alaska have a county which contains a majority of the state's population so winning every vote in that county would win the entire state.

Crovax · Oct 22, 2016

Masterhawk said:
Our current election system works like this: You don't actually vote for president, you vote for electors who have pledged to vote for your candidate. States with bigger populations have more electors than states with less people. But here's where many believe that there's a problem with our current system; winning more than half of a state's votes gets you all of the electors. So winning a state with 18 delegates by only 1,000 over 50% will win you the entire state (except in mane and nebraska where it's by district rather than the entire state), it doesn't matter by how much, all that matters is that you win a majority vote in that state. This system puts the election in the hands of only a few states called "swing states". There were also four times in US history where the candidate which won the popular vote lost the election.

A district voting system would probably be a little better than a WTA system. Currently, Nebraska and Maine are the only states which use this system. This system would apply the WTA system not to the entire state but to the congressional districts and 2 electors (representing the 2 senators) would vote for the candate which won the most votes in the state. This system would most certainly benefit republicans in California which has 53 districts, 14 of which have a republican majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_congressional_districts Currently, these fourteen districts are drowned out by the democratic majority and their votes don't matter. Similarly, Texas has 36 districts, 11 of which are democratic majority. There are also 2 liberal districts in tennessee, 1 libral district in Loisianna, 1 conservative district in maryland, 1 conservative district and 2 swing districts in Illinois, 9 conservative districts in michigan, and 6 red districts and 3 swing districts in New york.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_partisan_voting_index You get the idea, a lot of voters are being drowned out by the majority in safe states. The only problem with this voting system is the possibility that gerrymandering can affect the rpesults of the election. To fix this, each state should get a nonpartisan commission to draw the congressional districts and get approved by the state's federal court

The last voting system is the national popular vote. States will hand all of their electoral votes to the candidate which wins the popular vote. So far, 11 states have signed the national popular vote, all of which are safe blue states (likely a response to Bush's unpopularity and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact There were attempts for Arizona and Colorado to sign but these have failed. Probably the only way for red states to pass the NPV is for trump to win the popular vote but Hillary wins the electoral college. Opponents say that it will cause candidates to only focus their campaigns on big cities. However, only 19.48% of the US population lives in the top 100 cities https://ballotpedia.org/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population and people living in cities don't tend to have a different political alignment than their rural counterparts. Another concern is that the NPV could make a victory possible by winning the vote of every American in just 146 counties Half Of The United States Lives In These Counties - Business Insider some states don't have any of these counties. However, this is based on the assumption that these counties vote differently than the other two thousand and something counties and that a candidate could win the vote of EVERY person in these counties. Another problem with that argument is that this can easily be turned around when you consider the fact that some states like Arizona and Alaska have a county which contains a majority of the state's population so winning every vote in that county would win the entire state.

Under the district system Romney would have beaten Obama despite losing the popular vote by almost 4%, so I don't think that would sit too well with a lot of people.

As far as the popular vote, no. Not just no, but HELL NO! The reason we have the electoral college is because the founders rightly saw a direct democracy as a danger to the minority. It would literally go against the very ideal that America was founded on.

Caine · Oct 22, 2016

Crovax said:
Under the district system Romney would have beaten Obama despite losing the popular vote by almost 4%, so I don't think that would sit too well with a lot of people.

As far as the popular vote, no. Not just no, but HELL NO! The reason we have the electoral college is because the founders rightly saw a direct democracy as a danger to the minority. It would literally go against the very ideal that America was founded on.

A popular vote WOULDN'T be a direct democracy.

A direct democracy is literally mob rule.... The people vote on every single policy themselves, they DO NOT vote for REPRESENTATIVES who then handle policy making and voting.

Fishking · Oct 22, 2016

Crovax said:
As far as the popular vote, no. Not just no, but HELL NO! The reason we have the electoral college is because the founders rightly saw a direct democracy as a danger to the minority. It would literally go against the very ideal that America was founded on.

I'm not sure what I would change. Maybe not anything but the changes would be of a different nature, like abolishing political party affiliation while running for or holding office and districts have to be designed as symmetrical as possible or approval voting instead of only the one vote per voter method we have now.

I definitely do not want a national popular vote for the reasons you said. The system was designed so that there was a framework for all of us to work together but that smaller states and such couldn't be controlled by bigger states.

Masterhawk · Oct 22, 2016

Crovax said:
Under the district system Romney would have beaten Obama despite losing the popular vote by almost 4%, so I don't think that would sit too well with a lot of people.

As far as the popular vote, no. Not just no, but HELL NO! The reason we have the electoral college is because the founders rightly saw a direct democracy as a danger to the minority. It would literally go against the very ideal that America was founded on.

THe NPV would not make us a direct democracy. Representatives and senators would still vote on laws without us having a say in it. It would not abolish our constitution thus we would still be a constitutional republic.

Masterhawk · Oct 22, 2016

Fishking said:
I'm not sure what I would change. Maybe not anything but the changes would be of a different nature, like abolishing political party affiliation while running for or holding office and districts have to be designed as symmetrical as possible or approval voting instead of only the one vote per voter method we have now.

I definitely do not want a national popular vote for the reasons you said. The system was designed so that there was a framework for all of us to work together but that smaller states and such couldn't be controlled by bigger states.

So the current system was meant to protect smaller states? I guess that explains why neither candidate visited Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, DC, or North Dakota. In fact, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania which receive the majority of campaigning are among the most populous states in the union. The WTA system does not protect small states, it makes them less powerful. Right now, the selection process for presidents is in the hands of a few states. If we had the NPV back in 2000, we would be much closer to finding an alternate energy source.

joG · Oct 22, 2016

Masterhawk said:
Our current election system works like this: You don't actually vote for president, you vote for electors who have pledged to vote for your candidate. States with bigger populations have more electors than states with less people. But here's where many believe that there's a problem with our current system; winning more than half of a state's votes gets you all of the electors. So winning a state with 18 delegates by only 1,000 over 50% will win you the entire state (except in mane and nebraska where it's by district rather than the entire state), it doesn't matter by how much, all that matters is that you win a majority vote in that state. This system puts the election in the hands of only a few states called "swing states". There were also four times in US history where the candidate which won the popular vote lost the election.

A district voting system would probably be a little better than a WTA system. Currently, Nebraska and Maine are the only states which use this system. This system would apply the WTA system not to the entire state but to the congressional districts and 2 electors (representing the 2 senators) would vote for the candate which won the most votes in the state. This system would most certainly benefit republicans in California which has 53 districts, 14 of which have a republican majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_congressional_districts Currently, these fourteen districts are drowned out by the democratic majority and their votes don't matter. Similarly, Texas has 36 districts, 11 of which are democratic majority. There are also 2 liberal districts in tennessee, 1 libral district in Loisianna, 1 conservative district in maryland, 1 conservative district and 2 swing districts in Illinois, 9 conservative districts in michigan, and 6 red districts and 3 swing districts in New york.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_partisan_voting_index You get the idea, a lot of voters are being drowned out by the majority in safe states. The only problem with this voting system is the possibility that gerrymandering can affect the rpesults of the election. To fix this, each state should get a nonpartisan commission to draw the congressional districts and get approved by the state's federal court

The last voting system is the national popular vote. States will hand all of their electoral votes to the candidate which wins the popular vote. So far, 11 states have signed the national popular vote, all of which are safe blue states (likely a response to Bush's unpopularity and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact There were attempts for Arizona and Colorado to sign but these have failed. Probably the only way for red states to pass the NPV is for trump to win the popular vote but Hillary wins the electoral college. Opponents say that it will cause candidates to only focus their campaigns on big cities. However, only 19.48% of the US population lives in the top 100 cities https://ballotpedia.org/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population and people living in cities don't tend to have a different political alignment than their rural counterparts. Another concern is that the NPV could make a victory possible by winning the vote of every American in just 146 counties Half Of The United States Lives In These Counties - Business Insider some states don't have any of these counties. However, this is based on the assumption that these counties vote differently than the other two thousand and something counties and that a candidate could win the vote of EVERY person in these counties. Another problem with that argument is that this can easily be turned around when you consider the fact that some states like Arizona and Alaska have a county which contains a majority of the state's population so winning every vote in that county would win the entire state.

I put my vote to NPV. I am not sure that that it is really much of an improvement and don't really think that it will heel the problem unless the vote is normalized and actually independent of the individual States. This opens another kettle of worms. But, if we are going to go to put in the amount of effort and take the risk of fixing a system that is not really broken, we should choose according to the math involved. That would mean something along the French system well knowing that the results can be very disappointing and more easily catastrophic than the one we have

joG · Oct 22, 2016

Masterhawk said:
THe NPV would not make us a direct democracy. Representatives and senators would still vote on laws without us having a say in it. It would not abolish our constitution thus we would still be a constitutional republic.

That is quite true. What it would do would be to increase the risk of populist rule.

Van Basten · Oct 22, 2016

Caine said:
A popular vote WOULDN'T be a direct democracy.

A direct democracy is literally mob rule.... The people vote on every single policy themselves, they DO NOT vote for REPRESENTATIVES who then handle policy making and voting.

Exactly, I was like "Eh? That ain't direct democracy."

Anyway, I'm cool with the electoral college, things usually match. Wouldn't cry if it was gone though.

Master PO · Oct 22, 2016

Caine said:
A popular vote WOULDN'T be a direct democracy.

A direct democracy is literally mob rule.... The people vote on every single policy themselves, they DO NOT vote for REPRESENTATIVES who then handle policy making and voting.

true it would not be direct democracy, but by direct vote it would make the u.s. a democratic form of goverment, which the founders sought to avoid., the founders did not want democracy as a form because they are not stable, but instead they chose to have a republican form of mixed goverment, and sought to divide power when it came to creating laws. By a mixed goverment in order for legislation to become law, the interest of the people,(rights)the interest of the states(state powers),and the interest of the union had to be involved. Democracy as a form of goverement is only about the interest of the people, and leads to rights violations and the usurping of states powers, and the eventual fall of the union.power to make laws should never be in the interest of only 1 enity

faithful_servant · Oct 22, 2016

Crovax said:
Under the district system Romney would have beaten Obama despite losing the popular vote by almost 4%, so I don't think that would sit too well with a lot of people.

As far as the popular vote, no. Not just no, but HELL NO! The reason we have the electoral college is because the founders rightly saw a direct democracy as a danger to the minority. It would literally go against the very ideal that America was founded on.

It also flies in the face of the idea of Separation of Powers. Congress is elected by The People, the President is elected by The States and the SCOTUS is chosen by the two of them working together.

ALiberalModerate · Oct 22, 2016

A vote by congressional district system nationwide would be terrible as it would subject the presidency to the same gerrymandering tactics used in the House. If anything we should move to a national popular vote.

Caine · Oct 22, 2016

SouthernDemocrat said:
A vote by congressional district system nationwide would be terrible as it would subject the presidency to the same gerrymandering tactics used in the House. If anything we should move to a national popular vote.

I know its kind of off topic....

But I think congressional districts should be set in stone, and be drawn up using county lines or something definitive, rather than the spaghetti line bull**** we have to deal with every 10 years or so.

Mycroft · Oct 22, 2016

I selected "other".

The first two choices appear to be desired tweaks to the current Electoral College system. I have no preference for either method and I am quite willing to leave that sort of thing to the individual States...as our Constitution provides. Furthermore, we already have plenty of instances of the Federal Government taking away powers that the Constitution grants to the States by no other means than passing a law. I find that to be unconstitutional and would resist more of that happening.

The third choice...I reject out of hand. Our Founding Fathers were smart men. They realized the dangers of a popular vote and they wrote language into the Constitution to prevent that from happening. I'll stand by their wisdom. Leave the current system as it stands.

In any case, this whole issue is moot to me. These changes would require a Constitutional Amendment. Those things are, rightfully so, very very hard to do. I would be dead before any of those choices saw the light of day.

Caine · Oct 22, 2016

Mycroft said:
I selected "other".

The first two choices appear to be desired tweaks to the current Electoral College system. I have no preference for either method and I am quite willing to leave that sort of thing to the individual States...as our Constitution provides. Furthermore, we already have plenty of instances of the Federal Government taking away powers that the Constitution grants to the States by no other means than passing a law. I find that to be unconstitutional and would resist more of that happening.

The third choice...I reject out of hand. Our Founding Fathers were smart men. They realized the dangers of a popular vote and they wrote language into the Constitution to prevent that from happening. I'll stand by their wisdom. Leave the current system as it stands.

In any case, this whole issue is moot to me. These changes would require a Constitutional Amendment. Those things are, rightfully so, very very hard to do. I would be dead before any of those choices saw the light of day.

Don't be so confident that things require Constitutional Amendments. This is the 21st century. All government has to do is pass a law, and then ensure the court is stacked with the right types of justices who will "re-interpret" the various sections and amendments of the constitution to suit the government's purposes.

Perotista · Oct 22, 2016

Caine said:
I know its kind of off topic....

But I think congressional districts should be set in stone, and be drawn up using county lines or something definitive, rather than the spaghetti line bull**** we have to deal with every 10 years or so.

I'm with you 1,000%. I have been a firm advocate of as many counties as possible ought to remain whole. Here in Georgia we have 14 congressmen, that mean no more than 7 counties should be divided up. That would be the max number of counties divided.

Mycroft · Oct 22, 2016

Caine said:
Don't be so confident that things require Constitutional Amendments. This is the 21st century. All government has to do is pass a law, and then ensure the court is stacked with the right types of justices who will "re-interpret" the various sections and amendments of the constitution to suit the government's purposes.

Thanks for the correction. You, of course, are correct.

Perotista · Oct 22, 2016

Masterhawk said:
Our current election system works like this: You don't actually vote for president, you vote for electors who have pledged to vote for your candidate. States with bigger populations have more electors than states with less people. But here's where many believe that there's a problem with our current system; winning more than half of a state's votes gets you all of the electors. So winning a state with 18 delegates by only 1,000 over 50% will win you the entire state (except in mane and nebraska where it's by district rather than the entire state), it doesn't matter by how much, all that matters is that you win a majority vote in that state. This system puts the election in the hands of only a few states called "swing states". There were also four times in US history where the candidate which won the popular vote lost the election.

A district voting system would probably be a little better than a WTA system. Currently, Nebraska and Maine are the only states which use this system. This system would apply the WTA system not to the entire state but to the congressional districts and 2 electors (representing the 2 senators) would vote for the candate which won the most votes in the state. This system would most certainly benefit republicans in California which has 53 districts, 14 of which have a republican majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_congressional_districts Currently, these fourteen districts are drowned out by the democratic majority and their votes don't matter. Similarly, Texas has 36 districts, 11 of which are democratic majority. There are also 2 liberal districts in tennessee, 1 libral district in Loisianna, 1 conservative district in maryland, 1 conservative district and 2 swing districts in Illinois, 9 conservative districts in michigan, and 6 red districts and 3 swing districts in New york.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_partisan_voting_index You get the idea, a lot of voters are being drowned out by the majority in safe states. The only problem with this voting system is the possibility that gerrymandering can affect the rpesults of the election. To fix this, each state should get a nonpartisan commission to draw the congressional districts and get approved by the state's federal court

The last voting system is the national popular vote. States will hand all of their electoral votes to the candidate which wins the popular vote. So far, 11 states have signed the national popular vote, all of which are safe blue states (likely a response to Bush's unpopularity and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact There were attempts for Arizona and Colorado to sign but these have failed. Probably the only way for red states to pass the NPV is for trump to win the popular vote but Hillary wins the electoral college. Opponents say that it will cause candidates to only focus their campaigns on big cities. However, only 19.48% of the US population lives in the top 100 cities https://ballotpedia.org/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population and people living in cities don't tend to have a different political alignment than their rural counterparts. Another concern is that the NPV could make a victory possible by winning the vote of every American in just 146 counties Half Of The United States Lives In These Counties - Business Insider some states don't have any of these counties. However, this is based on the assumption that these counties vote differently than the other two thousand and something counties and that a candidate could win the vote of EVERY person in these counties. Another problem with that argument is that this can easily be turned around when you consider the fact that some states like Arizona and Alaska have a county which contains a majority of the state's population so winning every vote in that county would win the entire state.

It wasn't that long ago, probably depending on one's age as to when not long ago was. that almost most states were competitive. Heck, in 1984 Reagan won 49 states. The bottom line is candidates matter. In 1988 Bush the elder won 40 states. Bill Clinton switched that around in 1992 winning 32 states.

Since 2000 there has been basically 8 tossup states with the rest fairly well decided. But this year Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania have been added to those 8. So things are changing. People move, demographics shift, I am happy with things the way they are.

Surrealistik · Oct 22, 2016

The electoral college is asinine, anti-democratic and anachronistic; the sooner it's retired, the better; its litany of flaws in a nutshell:

Popular vote is the simply the better way of doing things, with the pros handily outweighing the cons vis a vis the existing system.

RetiredUSN · Oct 22, 2016

Each county should have it's own electoral vote.

Caine · Oct 22, 2016

Perotista said:
It wasn't that long ago, probably depending on one's age as to when not long ago was. that almost most states were competitive. Heck, in 1984 Reagan won 49 states. The bottom line is candidates matter. In 1988 Bush the elder won 40 states. Bill Clinton switched that around in 1992 winning 32 states.

Since 2000 there has been basically 8 tossup states with the rest fairly well decided. But this year Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania have been added to those 8. So things are changing. People move, demographics shift, I am happy with things the way they are.

Don't forget that Apparently the old north state, my beloved North Carolina is now considered a "Battleground" state.

Caine · Oct 22, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
Each county should have it's own electoral vote.

I disagree.

Some states are broken down into more counties than they should be.

I mean... North Carolina has 100 counties.... some other states with higher population might have less, etc, etc.

I think you get the idea.

Caine · Oct 22, 2016

Perotista said:
I'm with you 1,000%. I have been a firm advocate of as many counties as possible ought to remain whole. Here in Georgia we have 14 congressmen, that mean no more than 7 counties should be divided up. That would be the max number of counties divided.

I am sure someone is going to come in and claim that it SHOULD be like this to "be fair" and ensure minorities don't lose their voice due to them getting outvoted in the districts they live in, etc.

But.... come on.... look at these ****ing districts!!!

Does that **** make any sense?

RetiredUSN · Oct 22, 2016

Caine said:
I disagree.

Some states are broken down into more counties than they should be.

I mean... North Carolina has 100 counties.... some other states with higher population might have less, etc, etc.

I think you get the idea.

And other states have urban areas that get to dictate to the rest of the state.

Caine · Oct 22, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
And other states have urban areas that get to dictate to the rest of the state.

That is true.

The only problem I have with the electoral college is that the liberal parts of California essentially nullify the opinion of all the other parts of California who aren't so liberal... the same can be said for many other states as well...

I just use California as an example because it is worth a **** ton of electoral votes, which are granted due to the southern California cities... the rest of California may as well be fly-over territory.

Ideal election system

Which electoral system do you favor?

Winner take all (current in 48 states)

vote by Congressional district (2 states)

National Popular Vote

other

More options

Masterhawk

Crovax

Caine

Fishking

Masterhawk

Masterhawk

joG

joG

Van Basten

Black Is Smart

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

faithful_servant

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

Caine

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

Caine

Perotista

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

Perotista

Surrealistik

RetiredUSN

Caine

Caine

Caine

RetiredUSN

Caine