American Style Democracy vs. Pizza

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 22, 2011
3,659
2,765
743
32
#22
I have lived in cities, suburban and rural communities, if for nothing else than the difference between those lifestyles and the desires and needs of the very different people that come from each of those environments, we have to have the electoral college. I am a liberal and I don't want to be ruled by the urban mob.

Than being said what if we had proportional distribution of each states electors based on the popular vote in each state. Being a liberal in a hard red state, i am obviously biased towards it but i would like to hear your opinions. To me it would be a simple way to keep the electoral college that I agree is a very important part of our federal system, but also address the undemocratic issues that so many (including Republicans in New York, California and many other blue states) have complained about and have demoralized voters for so long leading to the horribly low turnouts we have
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,927
3,390
1,743
#23
NYC has about the same population as the bottom 10 states combined. There's no way the founding fathers would've wanted a single population center to have as much voting power as 1/5 of the country. I hope the electoral college is never abolished and the national popular vote interstate compact is ruled unconstitutional whenever it eventually reaches the SCOTUS.
 

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
162
137
93
56
Wisconsin
#24
NYC has about the same population as the bottom 10 states combined. There's no way the founding fathers would've wanted a single population center to have as much voting power as 1/5 of the country. I hope the electoral college is never abolished and the national popular vote interstate compact is ruled unconstitutional whenever it eventually reaches the SCOTUS.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact idea will be scrapped as soon as Trump wins the popular vote this time around :lol:
 
Feb 25, 2008
3,980
2,069
1,743
#25
I have lived in cities, suburban and rural communities, if for nothing else than the difference between those lifestyles and the desires and needs of the very different people that come from each of those environments, we have to have the electoral college. I am a liberal and I don't want to be ruled by the urban mob.

Than being said what if we had proportional distribution of each states electors based on the popular vote in each state. Being a liberal in a hard red state, i am obviously biased towards it but i would like to hear your opinions. To me it would be a simple way to keep the electoral college that I agree is a very important part of our federal system, but also address the undemocratic issues that so many (including Republicans in New York, California and many other blue states) have complained about and have demoralized voters for so long leading to the horribly low turnouts we have

I haven't put too much thought into it, but one possibility I'd consider considering is to divide states' electors up into areas defined by their representatives. So, for Oklahoma (and every other state) 2 electors will go to the overall state popular vote based on the 2 senators. The other 5 votes will go based on the popular vote of each of the 5 representative districts. So, perhaps Oklahoma would be split 3 (for the 3 rural districts) to 2 (for the basically OKC and Tulsa districts). This would make "every vote" more likely to be important - as least in some areas. While Oklahoma is at risk of losing two normally republican electoral college votes, California might lose more normally democratic votes.

For Wyoming - all 3 go the same way since they only have one representative.

Let the importance of gerrymandering arguments begin.

1582659785299.png
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,366
2,587
1,743
So Cal
#27
I have lived in cities, suburban and rural communities, if for nothing else than the difference between those lifestyles and the desires and needs of the very different people that come from each of those environments, we have to have the electoral college. I am a liberal and I don't want to be ruled by the urban mob.

Than being said what if we had proportional distribution of each states electors based on the popular vote in each state. Being a liberal in a hard red state, i am obviously biased towards it but i would like to hear your opinions. To me it would be a simple way to keep the electoral college that I agree is a very important part of our federal system, but also address the undemocratic issues that so many (including Republicans in New York, California and many other blue states) have complained about and have demoralized voters for so long leading to the horribly low turnouts we have
17 States That Will Gain or Lose Electoral-College Votes After the 2020 Census
By Matthew Housiaux, Reporter | January 30, 2020
Every 10 years, the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are reassigned based on the results of the U.S. Census. This also helps determine a state’s number of votes in the Electoral College (House seats plus Senate seats, plus three additional for the District of Columbia for a sum of 538) and thus its power to decide presidential elections.

Where people go, so goes political power. According to Election Data Services, at least 17 states will likely gain or lose seats—and electoral college votes—after the 2020 Census, based on the latest demographic trends. States in the South and West will see the biggest gains; Texas could pick up as many as three seats, the most of any state. The Midwest and Northeast will not fare as well: Eight of the 10 states set to lose House seats are from these two regions.
Both parties could profit from these developments. Take Florida, whose rapid growth is fueled by both increasing numbers of younger Latinos, who tend to vote Democratic, and older retirees, who tend to vote Republican. As a result, the Sunshine State will probably remain the archetypal swing state for years to come.

https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow...l-college-changes-from-2020-census/index.html
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,666
3,460
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#28
I have lived in cities, suburban and rural communities, if for nothing else than the difference between those lifestyles and the desires and needs of the very different people that come from each of those environments, we have to have the electoral college. I am a liberal and I don't want to be ruled by the urban mob.

Than being said what if we had proportional distribution of each states electors based on the popular vote in each state. Being a liberal in a hard red state, i am obviously biased towards it but i would like to hear your opinions. To me it would be a simple way to keep the electoral college that I agree is a very important part of our federal system, but also address the undemocratic issues that so many (including Republicans in New York, California and many other blue states) have complained about and have demoralized voters for so long leading to the horribly low turnouts we have
I’d say that’s something both conservatives and liberals could agree on since there’s so many parts of the west coast that want to secede.
 
Nov 6, 2010
1,435
524
743
#29
I have a couple problems with the current system but it doesn't have much to do with majority rule or popular vote.

1 States like Florida for instance, have so many electoral votes, but the popular vote in that state is always neck and neck. It seems silly to award all or nothing electoral votes on such a thin margin one way or the other. I'd like to see more states tweak the way they award their electoral votes to more accurately represent their people.

2 It is by nature divisive for the country. Oklahoma for instance, is going to vote for Trump this time no matter what. So what incentive do any of the democratic candidates have to even try to relate or appeal to the okies. Middle America is labeled as fly over states by folks on the coasts. Trump takes shots at California and Maryland because he knows he is not going to get those votes. The two party system is already set up to divide us into two camps, and the electoral college just creates the rules to reward that very practice.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
9,313
6,748
743
Gondor
#30
I’d say that’s something both conservatives and liberals could agree on since there’s so many parts of the west coast that want to secede.
Indeed. Inner and most of coastal Oregon from Portland, and inner Washington State. I think Cali wants to split into 4 or 5, as well.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,801
5,447
1,743
Katy, TX
#32
I haven't put too much thought into it, but one possibility I'd consider considering is to divide states' electors up into areas defined by their representatives. So, for Oklahoma (and every other state) 2 electors will go to the overall state popular vote based on the 2 senators. The other 5 votes will go based on the popular vote of each of the 5 representative districts. So, perhaps Oklahoma would be split 3 (for the 3 rural districts) to 2 (for the basically OKC and Tulsa districts). This would make "every vote" more likely to be important - as least in some areas. While Oklahoma is at risk of losing two normally republican electoral college votes, California might lose more normally democratic votes.

For Wyoming - all 3 go the same way since they only have one representative.

Let the importance of gerrymandering arguments begin.

View attachment 77826
So that would have made Electoral College
Hillary 245
Trump 285
Instead of 302 vs 232

However, it would not have stopped the complaints, like the one that opened this thread, that residents of Wyoming have more power than residents of Cali.
 
Feb 6, 2007
4,504
4,864
1,743
Ardmore, Ok.
#33
I've felt it was weird since I was in 3rd grade and I learned about the Electoral College.

It's like having a leak in your roof while living in the desert. It's not a high priority problem, but you would think everyone realizes it should be fixed

I understand it's in the constitution. I get it. But there are also amendments for reasons.

I am not sure why any supporter of majority rule wouldn't want the presidential candidate who received the most human votes to win. I believe humans are more important than states.
Majority Rule is two coyotes and a rabbit voting on what to eat for lunch.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,801
5,447
1,743
Katy, TX
#38
“And to the democracy, for which it stands,”.
You are right. That’s sucks.
I assume you are talking about the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,726
52,262
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#39
I notice most Dems only want to use the popular vote for national presidential elections. Not much interest in using it for their primaries/caucuses.
They want the popular vote for presidential elections... until Trump wins the popular vote. They utterly fail to understand that any procedural change can work against them in the future.

Hey, Harry Reid, how's that "nuclear option" for judicial appointees working for you now?

Idiots.