|
JOEBIALEK
Stranger
Registered: 06/03/05
Posts: 21
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
#23963238 - 12/28/16 04:35 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.
This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate. For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: ELECTORAL COLLEGE [Re: JOEBIALEK]
#23963254 - 12/28/16 04:41 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If you do that, you might as well get rid of the electoral college and just use the popular vote, no?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
That wouldn't be the same, though. Because states have a minimum of three electors, states with low populations would be less able to determine the outcome of presidential elections with a popular vote system.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: ELECTORAL COLLEGE [Re: Enlil]
#23963789 - 12/28/16 08:13 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
and it would be harder to fuck under the states where most of the people actually live.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: If you do that, you might as well get rid of the electoral college and just use the popular vote, no?
no. if each "district"/elector could cast a vote in the winner-take-all states, a single state could/would end up with votes for two or more candidates, as opposed to ALL votes going in the majority's direction
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
|