An alternative to the Electoral College AND the Popular Vote

N

Nightcrawler

New member
I understand the purpose of the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure the guy elected is popular ALL over, and not just in a few population centers.

Well, that's happened anyway. The crowded states of New York and Kalifornia take up such huge portions of the electoral vote that it's unfair to the rest of the country. Especially since these two isolated regions are politically and culturally rather different from the rest of the nation.

On the other hand, the popular vote would simply be Mob Rule. It would make it so candidates wouldn't need to travel the country campaigning, they would only need to win a few (usually liberal) population centers and to hell with small town USA.

Well, I have an alternative that doesn't give big cities a huge advantage. Remember, this is JUST a suggestion. Like most of my suggestions, it isn't perfect.

Maybe we could try a system where each county is worth one point, and whomever gets the most votes in that county gets a point.

The possible problem is that counties with a population of 1,000,000 would be worth the same as counties with a population of 1000.

On the plus side, the candidates would have to go all over to win votes. They would have to make a plea to ALL Americans, and the guy who's popular in more areas would win.


This was my idea. Anybody got an alternative to Electoral College or Popular Vote, or a way to improve the Electoral College?
 
proportional voting in the electoral college. take the percentage of the vote in a state for a candidate, then give the candidate that percentage of the electoral votes. Bush would have won that.
 
VERY good ideas guys! Unfortunately, NightCrawler- you'd NEVER hear the f'ing end of the belly-aching Los Angeles County would do about Back-Woods-Bob county with 50 whole voters in the county. It certainly has potential though!

As usual, the people will take what ever is fed to them. Your ideas make PERFECT sence, but apparently nobody really gives a rats a$$ about ANYTHINHG that makes sence.

If there are any ways to make a concerted plea for these ideas to those would would act on them, I'll spread the word in any way I can.

-Jest
 
I can't see going to a popular vote. This makes every state, except the most populated, virtually inconsequential in a national election. If you add up the population of every mid-western and western state (barring the pacific coastal states), it doesn't equal the population of California alone...

Here's my thinking (it's pretty close to George's idea):

1) Electoral votes are determined by the number of congressional reps in a given state.

2) Each congressional district is counted individually during an election, therefore we know which candidate wins each district.

Based upon 1 and 2, why not grant the candidate the electoral vote of the congressional districts they win?

This seems like a viable improvement in the electoral college to me. We wouldn't confuse things by scrapping the system and starting over, and the number of electoral votes granted each winning candidate would be much more equitable in the big picture.

Ken

------------------

God so values free will that He gave us all the freedom to turn our back on even Him. If liberty is that important to God, it should be that important to us all...
 
I'll admit my lack of appreciation for the Electoral College until this election. I now understand and appreciate it much better.

An alternative is as follows:
Ours is a nation of consentual States. To obtain their consent to join the Union, they each had stipulations (almost all of which included RKBA).

Someone mentioned to me that Bush won some 27 or 28 States thus far. How 'bout we determine the election on that basis, Mr. Gore? Are you willing to tell the Voters of North Carolina that their State is not as valuable as California?...the voters of Missouri that their State is not as valuable as Massachusetts?

Pulease, say it's so, Mr. Gore.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited November 10, 2000).]
 
How about a country wide lottery for all goverment posts including Grandma in the back hills of whereever.Save us all a lot of money and the law of averages should even things out over a period of yrs.We sure couldn't do much worse then we have been doing could we.

------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
A solution to CHANGE the EC system, not abolish it... it would only take a couple adjustments, and COULD POSSIBLY be implemented in this case without starting a war.

Part One:
You take each EC vote, and multiply it by 10. This is to prevent "fractional votes" as I continue below. Each state maintains the same number of Electors, under the current criteria (total congressmen plus total senators). In this example, a state with 4 EC votes, will now have 40 votes. Because each EC vote is multiplied by 10, the total needed to win an election is now 2700.

Part Two:
WITHIN EACH STATE, you total ther percentage of votes for each side. Any candidate that recieved less than 5% of the STATE popular vote is excluded from the process. (So we don't have to nit-pick over everyone who wrote themselves on the ballot, etc). It is mandated that each state follow this rule: "The candidate shall recieve that same portion of the State's EC votes as that percentage of the popular vote". So then, a state that had 4 EC votes now has 40 EC votes. Let's say that 3/4 voted Republican, then 30 EC votes goto him, and the other 10 goto the other guy. These votes are put in the national pot for each candidate. A further minor stipulation in this case could read "If the popluar vote between the two leading candidates in a perticular state are within 0.5% of eachother (one half of one percent, as in FL)- then the EC votes for that state shall be split evenly between the two candidates- problem solved. No more re-counts, court hearings, and the like.

This works for the best of both worlds. It is not a straight up national popular vote, buecause we are after all a REPUBLIC of states, not a National Democracy. This system insures that no individual state has any more or less pull in an election than they currently do. Additionally, I submit this argument: If I live in rural CA, and my cultural beliefs lead me to vote a certain person, and considering that my cultural beliefs differ from the 80% of the STATE population which all live in major metro areas, under the current system, my vote doesn't count for Jack! Just like all the people in FL are crying out "my vote didn't matter"- in my above argument, neither did the vote of a LOT of country folk in large states with large cities. This new system would indeed make their vote count. In CA, a minor opion could still win 10 percent of the EC votes for the state.

The media would stirr people away from such an idea, but just becuase it screws up their abillity to give a play-by-play... but guess what folks, this is the future of a Nation, no WWF Smack-Down.

Feed back?

-Jest
 
Jest, sounds fine to me. That would accomplish what I want, which is votes of people in one-sided states to actually matter for once. Of course, it would also change campaigning strategies--candidates would actually have to visit their "safe" states and rally up their voters to ensure that they got _lots_ of votes instead of just barely won it.

I _think_, although I'm not sure, this would lead to candidates not running to the center so much.

ps - This could be accomplished on a state-by-state basis (in fact that's how it would have to be accomplished) but I don't think legislators will go for it b/c it would limit the impact of the state as compared to states that retain the old system.

[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited November 10, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top