The electoral college
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2024, 03:11:44 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The electoral college
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: The electoral college  (Read 579 times)
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2016, 08:31:23 AM »

Amending the EC by amending the way electors are selected does not require a constitutional amendment - a proportional system is thus very possible, and an ideal compromise.
Logged
HannibalLecter
anti_trump
Rookie
**
Posts: 63


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2016, 08:43:35 AM »

Swing states shift from time to time. If a region (like the Rust Belt) decides it no longer wants to be a safe zone for a political party, then it's relevance increases. It's not entirely the Republican Party's fault that the coastal states vote straight ticket D or entirely the Democratic Party's fault much of the Southeast voted straight ticker R. The fault lies with the people that refuse to see things objectively. Relevance would change with these regions, once that changes.

Also, diversity does not mean ethnic minorities. That is a quite bigoted way of looking at things. Ethnic background should not develop a person's political leanings. Diversity means bringing in people with various lifestyles. That should include farmers, ranchers, hunters, factory workers, miners, lumberjacks, and all the other jobs you might consider deplorable.

If you remove the EC, you will only have politicians ever campaign in major population areas, limiting the diversity quite drastically. No one will appeal to rural areas, small towns, or even smaller metro areas. There would be no need to do so.

The Democrats need to remove themselves from the ivory tower, or they will continue to lose influence. Establishment GOP was doing exactly the same thing.

So the Democrats should just support segregation, pro-"life" and conversion therapy again to appeal to the rednecks. That truly is democracy at work!
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,246
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2016, 11:36:08 AM »

Perhaps(?) the flaw is that it is not proportional. Except in DC  (an issue in itself), it is based on Congressional representation, two electors for each Senator and one for each CD. If it is "undemocratic", then so is the Senate. It would be more proportional were it based only on how many representatives a state has. What about other "undemocratic" systems like super delegates and closed primaries?
By the way gerrymandering is also a problem. Right now only ME & NE don't use the winner take all system and this is not much of an issue, because the two recent times they have split (2008 & 2016) they haven't tipped the election. If every state were like these two it would favor whichever party has gerrymandered the districts.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,246
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2016, 11:49:04 AM »

I think that it is probably highly unlikely that the GOP would win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, because of CA for one thing, but they certainly don't (as of today) have a "lock" on the electoral college. Based on history and the 2016 election this is how I see the "swing" states which means that neither party necessarily has an advantage (green lean one way or the other):

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 11 queries.