Choosing Electors

[Belsnickel]

There has been a lot of talk about the electoral college after this election, and while I have made my arguments against it altogether, this isn't a thread advocating for that. This is for the way in which states determine their electors. For example, Most states use a winner-take-all approach in which the winner of the plurality vote in the state is awarded all of the state's electors. In Maine and Nebraska (and introduced recently in Virginia) the vote is split between congressional districts. In Virginia, this would mean that 11 of the 13 electors would be based upon the popular vote in each congressional district, and the two remaining would be awarded to the overall popular vote winner for the state.

So what is interesting about this for Virginia is that of our 11 districts, only 3 seat Democrats, yet has gone to the Democrat candidate in the past three presidential elections. We also have Democrats in all three statewide elected positions (including Senators), yet Republican controlled legislatures. It makes this state a very interesting purple state when it comes to things. But, the congressional districts are very predictable in their voting. In my district, for the past three presidential elections, we have had someone from one of the two major party tickets visit. But, the district overall is dependably Republican and so we would have never seen that because what would be the point of stopping by here when they know how the district will go?

The issue with both winner-take-all and using the congressional districts is that it can effectively disenfranchise voters. Someone in my district that leans liberal will lose motivation to go to the polls on election day, and the same could be said for someone conservative leaning in a NoVA district. It would mean that Virginia would no longer be a battleground state.

I've thought that a better idea, not just for Virginia, but all states, may be to choose electors proportionally. Meaning that if your state has 10 electors then for each 10% of the vote, an elector is assigned. This would work well with ranked voting to allow a better distribution when it comes down to the final one or two.

What do you think, if we are going to keep the EC, should we look differently at how we assign electors in our prospective states? Do you think winner-take-all, congressional districts, proportional, or even just the state legislature choosing should be the direction we go?

[xxlt]

As a child, I remember when the electoral college was explained to us in school in the sixth grade. I think every single student said, in spite of the good intentions of our founders, that all votes should be counted equally and the winner of the popular vote should win the election. Nearly 40 years later I still feel the same way.

But if the EC is somehow supposed to be about proportionality, then OK, lets award electoral votes within states proportionally. If a candidate wins a state 51-49 percent, then split the electoral votes the same way - you don't even need electors - just say 51% of the state's electoral vote value goes to the winner, 49% of the state's electoral vote value goes to the loser. It would be interesting to see what the result would be if we did that in this (or previous) election(s). Perhaps Trump would still win, but I wonder since he had small victory margins in some modestly valued states while Clinton had bigger margins in highly valued states. But, big enough for her in a non-winner take all scenario like this? Maybe not.

[treee]

Well, ideally we'd utilize technology so that our informed citizenry could participate in a direct democracy, including for presidency.

[CKwi88]

I'd be all for moving to a full popular vote, or at least some kind of election reform. I can think of a number of benefits. Most of all, it would stop elections from coming down to essentially decisions in a handful of states, and make candidates care about all 50 states. I have no doubt that numbers in states like California and Texas would be different if either of the candidates had to put real effort into getting their messages out and speak to voters.

However, I just don't see it happening. Republicans might have been out of power for around a quarter century if we had a popular vote. I don't see there being any incentive for the GOP to want change on that front.

[xxlt]

(12-25-2016, 12:42 PM)treee Wrote: Well, ideally we'd utilize technology so that our informed citizenry could participate in a direct democracy, including for presidency.

Radical communist sumbich - who let him in here?!

[Belsnickel]

(12-25-2016, 12:42 PM)treee Wrote: Well, ideally we'd utilize technology so that our informed citizenry could participate in a direct democracy, including for presidency.

That's not really an ideal, IMO. At least not a full on direct democracy. If you mean a straight popular vote for POTUS, I agree, but it isn't something that will happen easily and would take a constitutional amendment. Encouraging states to change their method of choosing electors and updating their elections methods would still be difficult, but more likely to succeed. JMHO.

[Rotobeast]

I'd like to know why former POTUSes (totally feels like it should be POTI ) are allowed to be electors, especially one with a spouse in the race ?
A former POTUS could sway that college's voting.

Shenanigans, I say !

Disclaimer: I never knew former POTI (screw it, I'm using it ! ) could be electors, until this cycle.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(12-25-2016, 04:32 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'd like to know why former POTUSes (totally feels like it should be POTI ) are allowed to be electors, especially one with a spouse in the race ?
A former POTUS could sway that college's voting.

Shenanigans, I say !

Disclaimer: I never knew former POTI (screw it, I'm using it ! ) could be electors, until this cycle.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Constitutionally, if a person is not holding federal office currently or has not rebelled against the state, then they are eligible as electors. Each state can also hav e different rules, but that is the only federal restriction.

[Rotobeast]

(12-25-2016, 10:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Constitutionally, if a person is not holding federal office currently or has not rebelled against the state, then they are eligible as electors. Each state can also hav e different rules, but that is the only federal restriction.

Thanks..... still seems odd to me.

[*bfine32*]

Straight popular goes against the Constitution and the whole premise of a United States process. Each state must have their say. I have mentioned before that a state proportional EC process is one L could get behind.

[Belsnickel]

(12-25-2016, 11:06 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Thanks..... still seems odd to me.

Electors were intended to cast the vote for POTUS. Their job was to be knowledgeable about the candidates in a time when the normal citizenry would have no clue who these people were. A former POTUS would be a political insider that would know about the candidates and so, in reality, would make abgood elector. It is up the people to then elect the electors. The way the system was intended, it would be up to the people to decide whether they want that particular elector casting their vote.

This is my issue with the system, it's like Frankenstein's monster with different parts that don't seem to match.

[Belsnickel]

(12-25-2016, 11:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Straight popular goes against the Constitution and the whole premise of a United States process. Each state must have their say. I have mentioned before that a state proportional EC process is one L could get behind.

Which is why it would take an amendment, which would make a popular vote constitutional. Lots of things weren't constitutional until amendments were passed such as suffrage for women and a number of other things. I've always been a bit Madisonian in my approach to our government, and I understand his argument that because of suffrage for the people being so hard to come by in certain states that a popular vote would be unlikely, though would be the ideal. The EC was a good compromise. But, right now the EC serves only to disenfranchise the people, not protect their vote, and so should be abolished.

But at least proportional distribution of electors is one step in the right direction.

[GMDino]

(12-26-2016, 08:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Electors were intended to cast the vote for POTUS. Their job was to be knowledgeable about the candidates in a time when the normal citizenry would have no clue who these people were. A former POTUS would be a political insider that would know about the candidates and so, in reality, would make abgood elector. It is up the people to then elect the electors. The way the system was intended, it would be up to the people to decide whether they want that particular elector casting their vote.

This is my issue with the system, it's like Frankenstein's monster with different parts that don't seem to match.

My issue with it is do we really think the people voting have any clue?  At least enough of them that could swing an election?  Last week I had someone telling me the President was a gay Muslim.

Last.  Week.

And they had PROOF!

They vote too.



Guy I work with tell me every day the President Trump will make everything better...but can't tell me what is wrong or how he will do it. He just wasn't a Democrat and Obama was one of "them". "Them" can be anything from democrats to black.

They vote too.

[fredtoast]

There is no longer the huge differences between states as there was back in the late 18th century. Every state now has an industrial base and agriculture is controlled by big business.

I no longer see a need to give more voting power to acreage than individual citizens.