- Joined
- Jun 15, 2019
- Messages
- 5,739
- Reaction score
- 3,845
- Location
- Western New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I am not going to claim I invented the wheel or created fire, just an alternative proposal.
Lets begin with what stays the same: Every four years we have the primaries and the general election. The primaries are spread out between February and June, and each state gets to decide when they take place. The General Election happens in November and everybody votes at once.
Now lets move to the changes. To sum it up simply: In order to win the nomination or presidency outright, you need to win both the national popular vote AND the most presidential contests. If there's a split between the two, then you move into a tiebreaker round. The tiebreaker round depends on whether it's a primary or general election. For the primary, each district, including Washington D.C, gets to vote on who should be the next Republican/Democrat nominee. So for example, California has 53 districts, therefore the California Republican/Democrat party appoints electors to cast their ballots for the Republican/Democrat nomination. Their choices will only be TWO candidates. They either pick the candidate with the most popular votes or the most presidential contests won. For the general election, we do the same thing, only we look at which political party won each district. So if in Minnesota, the Republican nominee won 3 districts and the Democrat won 5, then the Minnesota GOP would appoint 3 electors, and the Minnesota Democratic party, would appoint 5 electors.
So why is this better? Here's my thinking:
(1) Each vote cast gets treated the same. It doesn't matter where you live. Every vote is a 1:1 ratio.
(2) Each state gets treated the same.
(3) It's simpler and more transparent. No superdelegates. No electors voting for anybody they want. Under a proportional system, we have to worry about decimal point controversies.
(4) Republicans in California and New York get their votes counted, so does Democrats in Tennessee and Alabama.
(5) Electors are only there for tiebreaker purposes, and only limited to the two most popular candidates.
Any questions?
Lets begin with what stays the same: Every four years we have the primaries and the general election. The primaries are spread out between February and June, and each state gets to decide when they take place. The General Election happens in November and everybody votes at once.
Now lets move to the changes. To sum it up simply: In order to win the nomination or presidency outright, you need to win both the national popular vote AND the most presidential contests. If there's a split between the two, then you move into a tiebreaker round. The tiebreaker round depends on whether it's a primary or general election. For the primary, each district, including Washington D.C, gets to vote on who should be the next Republican/Democrat nominee. So for example, California has 53 districts, therefore the California Republican/Democrat party appoints electors to cast their ballots for the Republican/Democrat nomination. Their choices will only be TWO candidates. They either pick the candidate with the most popular votes or the most presidential contests won. For the general election, we do the same thing, only we look at which political party won each district. So if in Minnesota, the Republican nominee won 3 districts and the Democrat won 5, then the Minnesota GOP would appoint 3 electors, and the Minnesota Democratic party, would appoint 5 electors.
So why is this better? Here's my thinking:
(1) Each vote cast gets treated the same. It doesn't matter where you live. Every vote is a 1:1 ratio.
(2) Each state gets treated the same.
(3) It's simpler and more transparent. No superdelegates. No electors voting for anybody they want. Under a proportional system, we have to worry about decimal point controversies.
(4) Republicans in California and New York get their votes counted, so does Democrats in Tennessee and Alabama.
(5) Electors are only there for tiebreaker purposes, and only limited to the two most popular candidates.
Any questions?