**Sorry, can't find a link right now. I'm sure someone can post it later, or I'll update it later. But I heard this morning that MN House Speaker Kirk Daudt is planning to introduce a bill, this coming session, to change Minnesota's E.C. voting from winner take all to by congressional district**


Minnesota had about 3.3M registered voters for this election, and 46.4% of them voted Democrat, compared to 44.9% that voted republican.

That gave all 10 E.C. votes to Clinton (though one voted for Sanders, and was then replaced by a back-up that voted for Clinton).

If Daudt's proposal was law, I think it would have been 7 E.C. votes for Trump and 3 for Clinton (not exactly sure there, but it's something like that).



LS (and Bull? not sure if you're in MN) I'm sure you'll be interested in this and support it.

Will be interesting to see how the DFL (that's MN's name for Democrats) fights this, and how much political capital Daudt is willing to spend to get this. Would he give up Light Rail, to get this??


My opinion on this should be well known: the only thing that matters is what the most Minnesotans want, regardless where they live.

Land area doesn't get votes, people do.

But, I can see where they're (MN repubs) coming from: the corrupt system that disenfranchises urban voters worked at the national level, so why wouldn't you try to replicate that at the state level??

When it comes to EC, honestly it should be whomever won the state gets those EVs.

Everyone is complaining because we didn't bend to the will of 3 million voters. Here's a fun exercise. Take Clinton and Trump's total number of votes, and subtract the two states with the most ECs. Clinton won Cali and Trump won Texas. You'll see how overpopulated Cali is and why we have an Electoral College.

I'm fine with a state choosing to do whatever they want regarding the EC. I think I would favor each congressional district getting one elector and then 2 that goes to the winner of the state overall.

Its a great idea for MN because it ensures that both parties will show up there. As it was, you never saw Clinton in MN, because she took it for granted. In most cycles you wouldnt see a republican there either. By doing this, MN becomes a must-campaign state.

Whatever they want.

Every county/parish in the country should have 1 vote.

(12-20-2016 10:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Its a great idea for MN because it ensures that both parties will show up there. As it was, you never saw Clinton in MN, because she took it for granted. In most cycles you wouldnt see a republican there either. By doing this, MN becomes a must-campaign state.

That's part of his (House Speaker's) argument.

(12-20-2016 10:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever they want.

Of course not. State's don't get to do whatever they want. They have to do whatever the federal govt tells them to do, which is a good thing.

(12-20-2016 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  State's don't get to do whatever they want. They have to do whatever the federal govt tells them to do, which is a good thing.

No one fall for this bait, please.

Fine with me. Let it stand as an unchallenged, and ultimately correct sentiment.

The main discussion for the thread is the upcoming effort by the MN House Speaker.

(12-20-2016 11:04 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  State's don't get to do whatever they want. They have to do whatever the federal govt tells them to do, which is a good thing.

No one fall for this bait, please.

This...

That was a pathetically obvious bait comment.

It's not that ignorant.

They will do this until it does not suit them. Then they will try and change back.

Good for them. Bigger states that want more attention would be wise to do this. So far only smaller states with less diversity in the populace have done it. MN would be a great laboratory to see how it works in a bigger state

(12-20-2016 11:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fine with me. Let it stand as a baseless, and completely ignorant sentiment.

The main discussion for the thread is the upcoming effort by the MN House Speaker.

FIFY

(12-20-2016 11:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fine with me. Let it stand as an unchallenged, and ultimately correct sentiment.

The main discussion for the thread is the upcoming effort by the MN House Speaker.

You see that below? Thats bullshiit. You can call it a tasty snack, buts its bullshiit. Just because you call it a snickers bar doesnt make it so, and just because we dont tell you its not a snickers bar wont make it taste any better. So dont eat it.

(12-20-2016 11:36 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MN would be a great laboratory to see how it works in a bigger state

There should be very little doubt how it would work: rural congressional districts have more repubs than dems, and so those votes will go to a less qualified candidate.

And the will of the most Minnesotans will be cast to the wayside.

(12-20-2016 11:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Just because you call it a snickers bar doesnt make it so

If you have an actual argument, or something of substance to add to the discussion, I'm all ears.

(12-20-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 11:36 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MN would be a great laboratory to see how it works in a bigger state

There should be very little doubt how it would work: rural congressional districts have more repubs than dems, and so those votes will go to a less qualified candidate.

And the will of the most Minnesotans will be cast to the wayside.

Are you bored waiting for your next shift, or did classes get cancelled after HRC lost again.

(12-20-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 11:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Just because you call it a snickers bar doesnt make it so

If you have an actual argument, or something of substance to add to the discussion, I'm all ears.

It doesn't matter what is said to someone with a closed mind.

It is fine the way it is. Leave it alone.

I really feel like this is the best compromise between the need for an electoral college and the desire for it to be more reflective of the general vote.

There is *zero* chance Governor Mark "Mumbles" Dayton lets this go without a fight.

(12-20-2016 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  **Sorry, can't find a link right now. I'm sure someone can post it later, or I'll update it later. But I heard this morning that MN House Speaker Kirk Daudt is planning to introduce a bill, this coming session, to change Minnesota's E.C. voting from winner take all to by congressional district**

Minnesota had about 3.3M registered voters for this election, and 46.4% of them voted Democrat, compared to 44.9% that voted republican.

That gave all 10 E.C. votes to Clinton (though one voted for Sanders, and was then replaced by a back-up that voted for Clinton).

If Daudt's proposal was law, I think it would have been 7 E.C. votes for Trump and 3 for Clinton (not exactly sure there, but it's something like that).

LS (and Bull? not sure if you're in MN) I'm sure you'll be interested in this and support it.

Will be interesting to see how the DFL (that's MN's name for Democrats) fights this, and how much political capital Daudt is willing to spend to get this. Would he give up Light Rail, to get this??

The nett effects would have

Hillary (5-7) - Wins State (+2) and I think 3-5 districts (a couple of GOP house winners won in +hillary areas.

Trump (3-5) - Won I think the Arrow Head and one or two other districts.


My opinion on this should be well known: the only thing that matters is what the most Minnesotans want, regardless where they live.

Land area doesn't get votes, people do.

But, I can see where they're (MN repubs) coming from: the corrupt system that disenfranchises urban voters worked at the national level, so why wouldn't you try to replicate that at the state level??

I really don't care what Minnesota does. They have shown by electing a professional wrestler Governor and a second rate comedian to the Senate that evidently extreme cold leads to mental illness.

(12-20-2016 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I really don't care what Minnesota does. They have shown by electing a professional wrestler Governor and a second rate comedian to the Senate that evidently extreme cold leads to mental illness.

And both are better than our current Governor, who is nothing but a mumbling child.