(11-16-2016 02:49 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  How about every state has an equal point. 50 points total. Whom wins the most states, wins !

+1

States should have equal rights regardless of population!

Demon-cratic states won't like that…at all. Can you just imagine the crying when New York and California, strong Libturds states, have the same votes as let's say Delaware. No way is that a good idea.

(11-16-2016 02:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What I mean to say is that the outcome was not contrary to the electoral college.

It never would or will be since the EC determines the outcome.


I suspect this isn't what you meant to say. I suspect you meant that the EC was not contrary to the theoretical 'popular' vote.

The problem with the logic I think you're going for is that it presumes that no votes would change under different rules. Maybe she wins, maybe she doesn't.... MAYBE she wins by MORE.... but there is NO WAY that the vote remains the same under different rules.

I know MY vote would change, and it would have gone to Trump. My son's, too... and he was a Berniac.

That's like measuring a basketball game by the final score, and then deciding to count up the number of times the ball went into the basket and noting that the conclusion was different... and then ignoring that if the new measure was the number of times the ball went in, that people would likely stop taking 3 pointers.

(11-16-2016 02:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:38 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:15 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:48 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:42 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  You are correct. The states can do that right now. The whining and crying from the Dems over losing this election is truly epic.

The problem is that the states which would benefit the most are so owned by one party... No way the democrats in CA or the Republicans in TX want to make it harder for their guy/gale

It's one of those "if you do it, then we'll do it" type things. Probably needs to come from a national level, so that each state can argue the benefits for/against the change.

But you literally can't enforce it at the national level right now. I can't imagine how hard it would be to craft a bill to foist this on the states which passes constitutional muster.

Maybe what you need is reciprocity.... If you got two groups of one or more states with the same number of electors to each commit to do it

Blue - NY, MA, CT, RI - 51
Red - TX, OK, AR - 51

Some time ago people tried to get bills passed in the states which would make the states award proportionally. It would be triggered when enough EV's were in the pact to secure the election.

That's trying to swallow the elephant.

By limiting the scope to smaller groups of states, and by provisioning EV's like NE and ME (instead of purely proportionally) you could start to eat it a bite at a time.

By nationally, I mean get all the parties in a room to talk about it. Then try to convince each state that it works better this way, like you wrote above. That's a pretty good idea.

Yea I don't think there is any way to get all the states to come to some consensus. Because for some states it won't work better. Do you think Florida is not thrilled with the amount of attention they get?

But VT and MA (14) might be able to work out something with MS and LA (14).

It gets doggy as states get smaller. Because how to you proportion one congressional district?

It's also my problem with states setting elector by % of the vote. Let's take my state, Minnesota.

We have 10EV..
Hillary = 46.9
Trump = 45.9
Johnson = 3.9
McMullin = 1.8
Stein = 1.3

How do you fairly proportion the EV?

Hillary 5, Trump 5? That would statistically the closest to reality but what's the point of winning Minnesota?

Hillary 5, Trump 4, Johnson 1? A little more fair for Hillary I suppose and throws a vote at the 3rd party. The rul;es would get really complicated so long as percent of the vote was the decider.

I think Maine and Nebraska have the best systems

(11-16-2016 03:21 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 02:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:38 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:15 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:48 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  The problem is that the states which would benefit the most are so owned by one party... No way the democrats in CA or the Republicans in TX want to make it harder for their guy/gale

It's one of those "if you do it, then we'll do it" type things. Probably needs to come from a national level, so that each state can argue the benefits for/against the change.

But you literally can't enforce it at the national level right now. I can't imagine how hard it would be to craft a bill to foist this on the states which passes constitutional muster.

Maybe what you need is reciprocity.... If you got two groups of one or more states with the same number of electors to each commit to do it

Blue - NY, MA, CT, RI - 51
Red - TX, OK, AR - 51

Some time ago people tried to get bills passed in the states which would make the states award proportionally. It would be triggered when enough EV's were in the pact to secure the election.

That's trying to swallow the elephant.

By limiting the scope to smaller groups of states, and by provisioning EV's like NE and ME (instead of purely proportionally) you could start to eat it a bite at a time.

By nationally, I mean get all the parties in a room to talk about it. Then try to convince each state that it works better this way, like you wrote above. That's a pretty good idea.

Yea I don't think there is any way to get all the states to come to some consensus. Because for some states it won't work better. Do you think Florida is not thrilled with the amount of attention they get?

But VT and MA (14) might be able to work out something with MS and LA (14).

It gets doggy as states get smaller. Because how to you proportion one congressional district?

It's also my problem with states setting elector by % of the vote. Let's take my state, Minnesota.

We have 10EV..
Hillary = 46.9
Trump = 45.9
Johnson = 3.9
McMullin = 1.8
Stein = 1.3

How do you fairly proportion the EV?

Hillary 5, Trump 5? That would statistically the closest to reality but what's the point of winning Minnesota?

Hillary 5, Trump 4, Johnson 1? A little more fair for Hillary I suppose and throws a vote at the 3rd party. The rul;es would get really complicated so long as percent of the vote was the decider.

I think Maine and Nebraska have the best systems

They don't go by percentage. It's who wins the district. HRC won 5, Trump won 3. Since HRC won the state she would get the other 2. So a 7-3 split.

(11-16-2016 04:26 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They don't go by percentage. It's who wins the district. HRC won 5, Trump won 3. Since HRC won the state she would get the other 2. So a 7-3 split.

Under these rules, I believe Cali might have gone to Trump, or at least been pretty evenly split. That won't sit well with the 'popular vote' crowd.


I'd also encourage voting on one day, and not counting those votes until the next day. I know that won't fly either, but it WOULD eliminate the power that 'the west' has over earlier time zones to impact the election.

(11-16-2016 04:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 04:26 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They don't go by percentage. It's who wins the district. HRC won 5, Trump won 3. Since HRC won the state she would get the other 2. So a 7-3 split.

Under these rules, I believe Cali might have gone to Trump, or at least been pretty evenly split. That won't sit well with the 'popular vote' crowd.


I'd also encourage voting on one day, and not counting those votes until the next day. I know that won't fly either, but it WOULD eliminate the power that 'the west' has over earlier time zones to impact the election.

Under these rules, Trump would have won 20/55 electoral votes in CA. HRC would have won 12/38 electoral votes in Texas.

(11-16-2016 04:26 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 03:21 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 02:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:38 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:15 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's one of those "if you do it, then we'll do it" type things. Probably needs to come from a national level, so that each state can argue the benefits for/against the change.

But you literally can't enforce it at the national level right now. I can't imagine how hard it would be to craft a bill to foist this on the states which passes constitutional muster.

Maybe what you need is reciprocity.... If you got two groups of one or more states with the same number of electors to each commit to do it

Blue - NY, MA, CT, RI - 51
Red - TX, OK, AR - 51

Some time ago people tried to get bills passed in the states which would make the states award proportionally. It would be triggered when enough EV's were in the pact to secure the election.

That's trying to swallow the elephant.

By limiting the scope to smaller groups of states, and by provisioning EV's like NE and ME (instead of purely proportionally) you could start to eat it a bite at a time.

By nationally, I mean get all the parties in a room to talk about it. Then try to convince each state that it works better this way, like you wrote above. That's a pretty good idea.

Yea I don't think there is any way to get all the states to come to some consensus. Because for some states it won't work better. Do you think Florida is not thrilled with the amount of attention they get?

But VT and MA (14) might be able to work out something with MS and LA (14).

It gets doggy as states get smaller. Because how to you proportion one congressional district?

It's also my problem with states setting elector by % of the vote. Let's take my state, Minnesota.

We have 10EV..
Hillary = 46.9
Trump = 45.9
Johnson = 3.9
McMullin = 1.8
Stein = 1.3

How do you fairly proportion the EV?

Hillary 5, Trump 5? That would statistically the closest to reality but what's the point of winning Minnesota?

Hillary 5, Trump 4, Johnson 1? A little more fair for Hillary I suppose and throws a vote at the 3rd party. The rul;es would get really complicated so long as percent of the vote was the decider.

I think Maine and Nebraska have the best systems

They don't go by percentage. It's who wins the district. HRC won 5, Trump won 3. Since HRC won the state she would get the other 2. So a 7-3 split.

I'm aware of that, as I said "Maine and Nebraska have the best systems"... But the push from the left is awarding them "proportionally"

I think that the system we have now is best as it allows each state to decide how to award their votes. If Californians want to allot their votes in a different way then Californians need to work to change it, not Nebraskans. If we South Carolinians are happy with how we allot our votes then New Yorkers shouldn't have any say whatsoever.

(11-16-2016 05:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I think that the system we have now is best as it allows each state to decide how to award their votes. If Californians want to allot their votes in a different way then Californians need to work to change it, not Nebraskans. If we South Carolinians are happy with how we allot our votes then New Yorkers shouldn't have any say whatsoever.

something something...tyranny of the minority.

thats a well thought out post right there...

(11-16-2016 05:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 05:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I think that the system we have now is best as it allows each state to decide how to award their votes. If Californians want to allot their votes in a different way then Californians need to work to change it, not Nebraskans. If we South Carolinians are happy with how we allot our votes then New Yorkers shouldn't have any say whatsoever.

something something...tyranny of the minority.

Constitutional law

Quote:Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Key phrase... Each STATE.

(11-16-2016 01:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 12:48 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 12:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Abolishing the Electoral College used to be something that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle hoped would one day happen. However, now that it suits the Republicans, they all of the sudden love it.

Just like the Democrats loved loved loved the Electoral College in 2008 and 2012 when they won and now hate it with the fire of a thousand suns in 2016. I guaran-dam-tee you if the Dems win in 2020, they'll go back to loving it madly.

I hate to break this to you brah but Obama won the popular vote in both of those elections.

I hate to break it to you brah but he single handedly did what no other Republican could do....destroyed the Democratic party.

We finally got our Hope and Change. We were Hoping we could get a Change.And we did.Thanks Oblunder. You destroyed your party all by yourself…oh, oh, and Killary.