First off:
Now, look at this:
This is a map of the counties in the US and how their votes went.
Notice how few Blue spots there are?
Those Blue spot represent highly populous areas that voted Democrat.
In this country we have a mostly "winner take all" approach to the appointment of Electoral College votes.
A few states have gone "proportional". That means that the Electoral College votes they provide are based on the proportion of votes the parties won in that state's election.
I have long been suspicious of that idea.
I'm beginning to like it, but I wonder if there's something better .
I live in Michigan. This is the first year we have given our votes to the Republican Party since 1988.
Remember Florida in 2000 with the "hanging chads"?
That election was turned on the results of a few votes.
What if every congressional district supplied it's Electoral College votes independently? Then the majority vote of the state supplied the other two?
There would have been no question as to who won the election.
On my post yesterday, Kid commented "If reps had to vote the way their district voted, we'd never have another democrat president again."
Absolutely true.
This election, we (conservatives) won even more state legislatures and governorships.
We need to take advantage of this, and like congressional redistricting, done at the state level also, make sure our voices are heard.
I still live in an area that votes Dem. My vote would be lost in a sea of Dem votes, but my friends in Kalamazoo would have votes that count.
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan would just be other states in a Federal Election and not the "battleground".
Does it make more sense to base the distribution on dostricts or state voter percentage?
Intuitively, I suspect district, even though districts are allocated to population .
Note:
This is the second iteration of this post since I inadvertently erased it trying to insert that Prager University video.
I've rushed to rebuild it from memory in order to get to church on time.
I may come back and tweek it later.
I'm ALL for this. I do believe it is what the founders intended with the simple statement of 'No taxation without representation". That concept should carry through to all corners of governmental direction. The majority carries the day.
ReplyDeleteI read it twice and can't quite get it, sadly...how's your suggestion different than reality? I thought I understood and agreed with the electoral college, finally, and now I'm screwed up again!
ReplyDeleteRight now, with the winner take all model for each state, whoever wins the majority of the votes in a state wins all the Electoral College votes for that state.
DeleteIn that map, there are areas in California that would actually have their votes count if they voted conservative.
But instead of "proportionally" meting out the Electoral College votes statewide, I suggest we deliver them by congressional district voting since they are allocated to the state by the number of congressional districts.
OH, thanks, I see now....I agree, I Googled the California map the other day and there were lots of very blue areas..
DeleteI don't feel my vote counts ONE BIT here in West L.A., but Congressional district voting wouldn't have helped me, either, if I'm reading this correctly! Although I DO know an awful lot of Conservatives around here, we're pretty outnumbered by rich 'cool' hipster liberals :-) (Many of whom were born with silver spoons in their mouths...given to them by their hard working mostly Republican parents who succeeded and spoiled their punks and sent them to American liberal universities)
The libs would find a work-around by re-drawing the maps, and everyone should agree that simple majority is not the way to go. I say install a The “Three-fifths Compromise” whereby every liberal person's vote only counts for 3/5. I know that is probably over-stated and too kind. The fraction could be tweaked to further dilute their power. Either that, or relocate them to Massachusetts. P.S. - populist nationalist's votes would not be counted as a whole vote per person in my solution, but I'd be willing to quibble the final number.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the "redrawing the maps" in most cases would be by Republican legislatures.
DeleteGetting ready to take eldest daughter to a gymnastics meet, so not much time now.....but I think I agree with your electoral plan. Where I diverge is thinking it will have much impact on our general state of political theater. Until we break the two party stranglehold on ballot access, debates, etc.....and the media business model which runs on pitting the two major parties against each other for ratings...we'll be stuck in the same mold.
ReplyDeleteOur founding fathers sure where wise when they set up the Electoral College. What we need to change are people's hearts and the only way to do that is to witness for Jesus Christ. :)
ReplyDeleteIsn't the Senate enough of an advantage for the smaller states?
ReplyDeleteAlong with the gerrymandering in the House (more votes were cast for Democrats) is rigging the presidential votes necessary, too?
Ducky, the answer to your question is in the clip Ed provided. Did it slip by you like water off your back?
DeleteEnjoyed your post and thoughts. They did not seem rushed.
DeleteNo PF, it answered nothing.
DeleteWhen we elect a president of the entire United States, why is "one person, one vote" not acceptable?
I realize that it has allowed you to elect the right wing candidate in two of the last five elections but you're going to have to move in pretty mysterious ways to explain why that is justified.
Again, the Senate assures smaller states of representation. Why carry that over to the president in contemporary America?
Duck,not sure what you're saying but if the representatives of each district had to vote ho the majority of people voted in their district, democrats would Never win another white house. Ever. Dems have the advantage and still lost. That should speak volumes.
DeleteOne person, one vote, one representative.
DeleteA Republic. Not a democracy.
As embodied in the Constitution.
For the reasons given in the video.
To change the Electoral system you need to change the Constitution. That takes 3/4 of the States to vote for the change. Add up the "blue" states...woops you lose again blue states.
ReplyDeleteThe Founders intended the Government to be a collection of States, not administrative districts. The Electoral College is an outcome of this belief. Perhaps Ducky would benefit from actually reading the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. There is no ambiguity at all in what the Founders envisioned.
That said, I don't think we need to water down the electoral college and move closer to democracy. That is the proverbial slippery slope. It moves away from the concept of a collection of Staes I mentioned and closer to the administrative district philosophy. As it is, each stae can apportion the electoral votes as it sees fit, see Maine for instance. No change is needed at the Federal level
And I'm suggesting that we do aportion them by congressional districts not by majority or rather percentage of vote in the state and that all states should do it this way.
DeleteAnd so it was done. In the 17th year of the 2nd century in the year of our Lord. And it was good. And the people cheered, and the vampires expired.
DeleteAnd they all lived happily ever after.
DeleteApportioning by congressional districts further weakens the State.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Statevlegislators could gerrymander districts to impact the electoral votes. Someday he Dems will be back in the various state houses. I don't trust any of the politicians to do the right thing.
What have I told you about confusing liberals with facts??? Oh, sorry, I don't think I've ever spoken to you. Never mind.
ReplyDeleteThe travesty of the way the Electoral College is implemented currently is that just as large population centers on a national scale would sway a popular vote, large population centers on a state scale swing Electoral vote selection within a state.
ReplyDeleteElectoral vote selection should be done by congressional district, just as the Electors are apportioned, and the remaining two electors per state might go by majority vote of that state or state government appointment as House and Senatorial representation were intended.
This would cure the Florida Pennsylvania Michigan Ohio problem.