There is no "Popular Vote" winner.

[kmoney]

The problem is the districts are gerrymandered. If you went with congressional districts you'd actually get a worse outcome than the current electoral college. That's a very bad idea for democracy.

So then make other changes too. :idunno: I agree that gerrymandering is a problem. I recently read an article about an electoral integrity project. My state of PA didn't fare very well.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/312014-study-ranks-best-worst-states-for-electoral-integrity

 

[kmoney]

Last I checked we have three separate and supposedly equal branches of government. The senate has a tremendous amount of power and gives every state regardless of size equal representation. Why should we continue to bias our choice of president towards small states as well?

Perhaps the EC could be tweaked but honestly, does it not concern you at all that if the president was elected based on national popular vote then Clinton would have won because of her strength in a single state, California?

 

[kmoney]

Mixed Member Proportional representation is probably the best fix.

Thanks for the video. I'm sure there's a ton of details that would need to be figured out but I think I'd favor moving toward something like that.

Vote for president based on popular vote. Make federal election days holidays. Extend voting days in all states. Give everyone a free national ID.

The parts in bold make sense to me. I've often said that election days should be holidays so it's easier for people to vote.

 

[kmoney]

If it gets bad enough our country will go into revolt and then another system will replace what we have now. Maybe Trump will bring it on. Maybe he'll make enough people mad that these kinds of changes will happen. Maybe we'll limp along for another 50 years, who knows.

I would hesitate to say never to anything. If you'd asked the founding fathers I'm sure they would have thought women would never vote.

It would need to be a revolt because the Republicans and Democrats won't willingly make changes to decrease their power.

 

[Alate_One]

Perhaps the EC could be tweaked but honestly, does it not concern you at all that if the president was elected based on national popular vote then Clinton would have won because of her strength in a single state, California?

It's really misleading to state Clinton's popular vote win came entirely from California. Yes, Clinton won by a larger margin in California than any other state. But if we removed one state from Trump's total, Texas, he wouldn't have won the EC. There's also the fact that Hillary won almost 50% of the votes in the REST of the states. Even many of states Trump won, he won with a tiny majority making it easier for a few million votes to put Hillary over the top.

California is the largest state by far with one in every 8 Americans living there, twice as many as live in Florida and considerably more than in Texas. That said, California is 12% of the population so if the rest of the nation voted against a candidate by a large margin, California could not override it by itself. As much as the right likes to demonize California it has nearly twice the GDP of Texas and if you removed California from the USA GDP would drop below that of the European union.

The US constitution was written when there were 13 states and 4 million people in the entire country. Population disparities between states were relatively small. Human population has ballooned in general but especially in the united states with immigration and territorial expansion. Population has also become tremendously more concentrated than the agrarian society that was present in 1789. This means the population disparities have become far more extreme than the founders probably could have ever imagined. US population is now around 350 million people, about 85 times what it was in 1789.

We need to recognize how much things have changed and for our government to function best, change to deal with the problems caused by the march of history.

Note this video was published in November of 2011.

 

[kmoney]

It's really misleading to state Clinton's popular vote win came entirely from California. Yes, Clinton won by a larger margin in California than any other state. But if we removed one state from Trump's total, Texas, he wouldn't have won the EC. There's also the fact that Hillary won almost 50% of the votes in the REST of the states. Even many of states Trump won, he won with a tiny majority making it easier for a few million votes to put Hillary over the top.

California is the largest state by far with one in every 8 Americans living there, twice as many as live in Florida and considerably more than in Texas. That said, California is 12% of the population so if the rest of the nation voted against a candidate by a large margin, California could not override it by itself. As much as the right likes to demonize California it has nearly twice the GDP of Texas and if you removed California from the USA GDP would drop below that of the European union.

The US constitution was written when there were 13 states and 4 million people in the entire country. Population disparities between states were relatively small. Human population has ballooned in general but especially in the united states with immigration and territorial expansion. Population has also become tremendously more concentrated than the agrarian society that was present in 1789. This means the population disparities have become far more extreme than the founders probably could have ever imagined. US population is now around 350 million people, about 85 times what it was in 1789.

We need to recognize how much things have changed and for our government to function best, change to deal with the problems caused by the march of history.

I know it isn't as easy as claiming that without CA Trump would have won the popular vote, but I do think that the huge disparity in the popular vote of CA raises some red flags about getting rid of the EC entirely. Thanks for the video. It does raise some good points.

 

[Alate_One]

I know it isn't as easy as claiming that without CA Trump would have won the popular vote, but I do think that the huge disparity in the popular vote of CA raises some red flags about getting rid of the EC entirely. Thanks for the video. It does raise some good points.

The vote in California was about 60% for Hillary but it wasn't the only state with that proportion. Massachusetts, Maryland and Vermont were the same. Quite a few other states hit 55% for Hillary - New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island. Many other states were close to 50/50. So California isn't some statistical fluke that needs "balanced". If you took out one or two of the states I listed you'd also "erase" the popular vote margin.

What's more extreme are a few red states like West Virginia and Wyoming voting about 70% for Trump. Several more are 60/40. If we're just questioning proportions, why not question those if we're into randomly removing states because we don't agree with them? But there might be more democrats in those states that don't bother to vote because the states are so extreme. I see no good reason in telling some people their votes count more than others.

 

[fool]

Alate One;
Do you have any suggestions that have a snow balls chance in hell of ever happening?

 

[rocketman]

I see no good reason in telling some people their votes count more than others.

Their votes did count, they counted in their district & state but, they do not count towards a nationwide "Majority Rule", the fact is Hillary could only sell it in 20 states, where Trump sold his message in 30 states, you have to sell it nationwide not in a smattering of big cities or a minority of states, that is the system. It is not the United State of California, or the United State of New York that are allowed to dictate to every state who will make policy for the entire nation.

 

[Alate_One]

Alate One;
Do you have any suggestions that have a snow balls chance in hell of ever happening?

Your assessment of odds is based on the status quo. Trump has just upended the status quo. We don't know what is going to come out of that. We could be at a turning point in history for good or ill.

What would help is ranked choice voting which was just voted in an entire state this past election.

That would at least eliminate the spoiler effect of people voting third party without eliminating their ability to make their voices heard. Since it can be done at the state level and benefits no particular party, it's probably the most likely change that could be made.

 

[Alate_One]

Their votes did count, they counted in their district & state but, they do not count towards a nationwide "Majority Rule", the fact is Hillary could only sell it in 20 states, where Trump sold his message in 30 states, you have to sell it nationwide not in a smattering of big cities or a minority of states, that is the system. It is not the United State of California, or the United State of New York that are allowed to dictate to every state who will make policy for the entire nation.

The problem is, the electoral college makes it possible for a tiny handful of states to overrule all of the rest, which you'd know if you watched the video I linked. It worked for you this time, but it's inherently broken with the current population structure.

 

[rocketman]

The problem is, the electoral college makes it possible for a tiny handful of states to overrule all of the rest, which you'd know if you watched the video I linked. It worked for you this time, but it's inherently broken with the current population structure.

It wasn't a tiny handful of states Alate, it was 30 states Trump to 20 states Hillary, that too is called a majority. The system is only broken in the minds of marxist liberals that want their way by hook or crook, the system was set up to spoil that, and that is the beauty of the representative republic over pure democracy which only has proven to eventually fail historically.

 

[Alate_One]

It wasn't a tiny handful of states Alate, it was 30 states Trump to 20 states Hillary, that too is called a majority.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said it's POSSIBLE for a tiny handful of states to take the electoral college. The electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win 20% of the vote and still be elected president.

A majority of states isn't how you win, you win in electoral votes which are at least partly based on population. As I said before if Hillary had flipped only Texas, the results would be different, then where would the "majority of states" complaint be?

The system is only broken in the minds of marxist liberals that want their way by hook or crook, the system was set up to spoil that, and that is the beauty of the representative republic over pure democracy which only has proven to eventually fail historically.

You really need to get over yourself and recognize that one person one vote is an obvious fair system to the vast majority of voters.

 

[rocketman]

You didn't read what I wrote. I said it's POSSIBLE for a tiny handful of states to take the electoral college. The electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win 20% of the vote and still be elected president.

It is possible but, not probable...show me one election in this nation other than some early elections that had as many as four viable candidates running where it was even close to that scenario?

A majority of states isn't how you win,

I am fully aware of that fact, I am not sure you are though given you and the rest of liberals are asserting Hillary won in a popular vote scenario, I asserted a different scenario where she lost an overwhelming majority amongst the popular vote amongst the states. Neither is the standard though majority of states is much closer to what we saw happen.

you win in electoral votes which are at least partly based on population.[/B] As I said before if Hillary had flipped only Texas, the results would be different, then where would the "majority of states" complaint be?

Hillary didn't, and couldn't, turn Texas so, that was a dream based in a vast fallacy. She lost Texas by almost 10% of the vote but, even in this scenario if she won the state, she won the electors, and would have won the election. Unlike you I wouldn't bemoan the constitutional system for the loss, nor would I be asking to change the constitution to fit my whim. You need to face facts that you all ran a loser, a dirtbag candidate with loads of baggage. What you democrats should be doing instead of bemoaning the constitution is changing your nonsensical super delegate system that is neither democratic or fair to the candidates you ran...Bernie was robbed & he probably would have beat Trump but, I assume you all can see that now as well.

You really need to get over yourself and recognize that one person one vote is an obvious fair system to the vast majority of voters.

And you need to get over your majority rule notion completely, because this representative republic is a far superior system than any pure democracy that exists now, or has eventually failed in the past, especially when you consider that this vast majority that you speak of (only 2%) is confined to basically 2 states which doesn't give you a majority of states or the majority of electoral votes to speak for an entire nation of states under this nation's constitution.

 

[rexlunae]

The Electoral College is not unfair, it exists to consider the interests of the states- if you take away the EC, you may as well take away the whole point of even having states.

Sure. Apart from the Senate. And state legislatures. And for that matter, the House of Representatives, which still overrepresented small states, despite being clearly and explicitly designed as the most democratic organ of federal power.

You just like the advantage it gives you. There's no way you'd tollerate such an advantage if it favored the other side...Which it very well could in a few years.

There is no good, educated opposition to the EC- everyone opposed to it simply favors socialism, which is not what America is. The EC was in put in place to check socialism.

Can you name one other democratic republic with such a mechanism?

 

[fool]

Your assessment of odds is based on the status quo. Trump has just upended the status quo. We don't know what is going to come out of that. We could be at a turning point in history for good or ill.

What would help is ranked choice voting which was just voted in an entire state this past election.

That would at least eliminate the spoiler effect of people voting third party without eliminating their ability to make their voices heard. Since it can be done at the state level and benefits no particular party, it's probably the most likely change that could be made.

OK, so, what states might be fertile ground for adopting that?

 

[Crucible]

Can you name one other democratic republic with such a mechanism?

The UK is on the verge of moral collapse because of their faulty democracy :chuckle:

You can get away with damn near murder there if you identify as a minority. Looting, pillaging, and harassment is an everyday occurrence right now there- they just sweep it under the rug is all. That's why the Alt Right is gaining so much speed- just like here in America, people are taking a vote of no confidence of the people assuming the chairs.

 

[fool]

The problem is, the electoral college makes it possible for a tiny handful of states to overrule all of the rest,.......

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

 

[Alate_One]

OK, so, what states might be fertile ground for adopting that?

Any that allows petition based ballot measures to amend the state constitution.

 

[Alate_One]

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Right, like allowing only white men who owned land to vote was a feature too.