Is the Electoral College Flawed and if So How do We Change It? (Indiana, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've got to be joking that the perennial swing states are representative. They are missing California, Texas, and New York, home to ~87 million of the nation's 320 million people. Florida and New Mexico are the only swing states with a high proportion of latino voters. There is no Pacific swing state, no Deep South swing state, and no representation of the nation's biggest urban centers.
I am not joking; I am deadly serious. If a candidate wins all or most of the swing states, it's a landslide victory and a mandate. When those states are evenly split, so is the rest of the country.
We might do at least as well if the presidential election was only conducted in the ten most evenly divided states. Their choice would be at least as likely to succeed as president, as would a person chosen by the other 40 states and the District of Columbia.
Instead of messing with the Constitution and the rules on choosing a president, our time would be better served if we discussed improving the nomination process. We do not need another election like 2016.
Instead of messing with the Constitution and the rules on choosing a president, our time would be better served if we discussed improving the nomination process. We do not need another election like 2016.
I tend to agree but there have been plenty of elections with one good and one lousy nominee and the "wrong" one won. Examples in modern times are Harding (1920, though the Democratic candidate was also undistinguished), 1952 and 1956 (Stevenson would have been somewhat better than Ike, a likeable but undistinguished President), 1968 especially (Humphrey far better than Nixon, one of the worst), and 1976 (I voted for Carter I'll admit but Ford was a quality human being and pretty good President).
An example of the "2016 patterns" with two lousy candidates are 1964 (both Goldwater and Johnson were disasters),
In the past nine months since the election we have hard that the electoral college is flawed. Two out of the last five elections saw a different popular vote than the electoral vote, that is simple to understand. But is it a symptom of the system and we should just leave it or should we fix the system? And if we chose to fix it, what do we do?
I say yes. It let's only 10% of the voting populous truly decide the president since they live in swing states. If you live outside of a swing state, what is the use in voting? My suggestion, tie electoral votes to the state's popular vote. So you win 60% of state's popular vote, you get 60% of the votes. For states with 5 votes, that would be 3 votes going to a given candidate.
If your vision of USA is that it's essentially a Unitarian country with a few local quirks,then you see electoral college as a failed archaic system.If your vision of USA shares that of its funding fathers, that USA is a federation of independent states, then it works as designed. If we as a country want to move more into unitarian state, we shall give more and more power to the federal government and eventually rewrite the constitution (which is unlike the Bible can be rewritten at any time as suitable to the popular needs). Otherwise, we shall recognise strength in having many different economic models and an ability to try different laws on a smaller scale and have an honest competition between different economic models, rather than 1 size fits all approach.
I am not joking; I am deadly serious. If a candidate wins all or most of the swing states, it's a landslide victory and a mandate. When those states are evenly split, so is the rest of the country.
We might do at least as well if the presidential election was only conducted in the ten most evenly divided states. Their choice would be at least as likely to succeed as president, as would a person chosen by the other 40 states and the District of Columbia.
Instead of messing with the Constitution and the rules on choosing a president, our time would be better served if we discussed improving the nomination process. We do not need another election like 2016.
The nomination process is nothing more than a dog and pony show put on by the parties. The TV debates are a farce in my opinion, for they leave out 3rd party candidates. Since the League of Women Voters dropped the debates in 84, the debates have become nothing more than a 2 party hack job. The debate commission is suppose to be a nonpartisan organization, but if you look at the commission it is made up of Democrats and Republicans. They get to set the rules, and the rules are stacked against any 3 party candidate trying to get into the debates. Nation wide TV exposure goes a long was in influencing voters.
You have to remember, the nomination process has nothing to do with federal elections, the primaries are run by the parties and your vote has nothing to do with federal election laws. This is why they can lock out nonpartisan voters from the voting process.
The nomination process is nothing more than a dog and pony show put on by the parties. The TV debates are a farce in my opinion, for they leave out 3rd party candidates. Since the League of Women Voters dropped the debates in 84, the debates have become nothing more than a 2 party hack job. The debate commission is supposed to be a nonpartisan organization, but if you look at the commission it is made up of Democrats and Republicans. They get to set the rules, and the rules are stacked against any 3 party candidate trying to get into the debates. Nation wide TV exposure goes a long was in influencing voters.
You have to remember, the nomination process has nothing to do with federal elections, the primaries are run by the parties and your vote has nothing to do with federal election laws. This is why they can lock out nonpartisan voters from the voting process.
I am not asking for a change to the presidential debates, or for making it easier for third-party candidates to raise a challenge.
I am only asking that each of the major parties come up with a better method of choosing their nominees. I think the Democrats did okay when they nominated John Kennedy in 1960 and Bill Clinton in 1992, and the Republicans did okay when they nominated Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W Bush in 2000. Before that, you have to go back to Eisenhower and Stevenson in 1952, and probably Harry Truman in 1948.
Both parties have nominated bad candidates in most elections over the last few decades. Who thinks Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Obama, or Hillary Clinton were the best choices the Democrats could have made? Who thinks Bob Dole or John McCain or Donald Trump were the best choices the Republicans could have made?
I would rather have ten wise men in each party choose their nominees, or select two or three candidates for their conventions to choose from. It's okay for individuals to indicate that they would like to be the nominee, but it's a terrible method when they spend four years or more raising money and creating opposition research operations to tear down their challengers. In my opinion, no candidate should ever have to raise and spend money to win the nomination of his or her party. The nominee should be the best-qualified person in their respective parties, not the one with the biggest war chest.
I am not asking for a change to the presidential debates, or for making it easier for third-party candidates to raise a challenge.
I am only asking that each of the major parties come up with a better method of choosing their nominees. I think the Democrats did okay when they nominated John Kennedy in 1960 and Bill Clinton in 1992, and the Republicans did okay when they nominated Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W Bush in 2000. Before that, you have to go back to Eisenhower and Stevenson in 1952, and probably Harry Truman in 1948.
Both parties have nominated bad candidates in most elections over the last few decades. Who thinks Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Obama, or Hillary Clinton were the best choices the Democrats could have made? Who thinks Bob Dole or John McCain or Donald Trump were the best choices the Republicans could have made?
I would rather have ten wise men in each party choose their nominees, or select two or three candidates for their conventions to choose from. It's okay for individuals to indicate that they would like to be the nominee, but it's a terrible method when they spend four years or more raising money and creating opposition research operations to tear down their challengers. In my opinion, no candidate should ever have to raise and spend money to win the nomination of his or her party. The nominee should be the best-qualified person in their respective parties, not the one with the biggest war chest.
I agree with you 100%, the problem with todays process is there is nothing stopping a person from voting as a democrat in the primaries and then switching to a republican in the general election. Which would corrupt the primary process.
I agree with you 100%, the problem with todays process is there is nothing stopping a person from voting as a democrat in the primaries and then switching to a republican in the general election. Which would corrupt the primary process.
My issue with the NPV is that it violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Now if they want to change the way we elect the POTUS then this should be done by a constitutional amendment, which I would support, and not through some unconstitutional back door approach.
My issue with the NPV is that it violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Now if they want to change the way we elect the POTUS then this should be done by a constitutional amendment, which I would support, and not through some unconstitutional back door approach.
You mean: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."?
Thank you for adding your expertise on Constitutional law. Apparently there are those who disagree with you and feel that the freedom of states to determine how their electoral votes will be determined in another clause of the Constitution brings into question the anti-compact clause you bring up. In other words, Constitutional law is not always clear and concise.
Last edited by phetaroi; 09-05-2017 at 12:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
