Electoral college leaves millions of voters disenfranchised

[Lead]

3 elections being effected sounds like a big deal to me. Why does it have to effect the entire election anyways?

Okay well let's take your example of Romneys vote in California. He lost the popular vote. What's the point in that example at all? The one example you can make in the past century is 2000 with Bush Gore.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I thought this was going to be about people in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands--not someone who thinks that people who vote for a candidate who doesn't win are "disenfranchised."

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Electoral college leaves millions of voters disenfranchised
it would be way worse without the electoral college, we would have the large cities deciding elections and all rural and most states wouldn't have a say in the election process

By large cities you mean large populations of people right? Secondly, it's mainly the all or nothing I'm against.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Okay well let's take your example of Romneys vote in California. He lost the popular vote. What's the point in that example at all? The one example you can make in the past century is 2000 with Bush Gore.

I'm OK with losing. I'm resentful of my hollow vote

 

[nostradumbass]

the fly over states would never see another politician

At least there's an upside.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I thought this was going to be about people in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands--not someone who thinks that people who vote for a candidate who doesn't win are "disenfranchised."

This isn't about winning or losing. It's about being heard. Jack you're smarter then that and I don't appreciate your, what I would assume to be, purposeful misrepresentation of my beliefs.

 

[second sight]

By large cities you mean large populations of people right? Secondly, it's mainly the all or nothing I'm against.

yes, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "all or nothing" whats your alternative?

 

[Deleted member 499399]

Okay well let's take your example of Romneys vote in California. He lost the popular vote. What's the point in that example at all? The one example you can make in the past century is 2000 with Bush Gore.

There is also a possibility that popular vote might change if more disenfranchised voters got to the polls. I'm in Ill and always vote third party for POTUS but know that my "real vote" will go for the Democrat.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

yes, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "all or nothing" whats your alternative?

If a state is worth 55 points and one side barely wins the state, why should ALL of the electoral votes go to the winner?

Either split the electoral votes along the popular vote ratio, or maybe do it by district so the rural folk get more say as well.

 

[second sight]

If a state is worth 55 points and one side barely wins the state, why should ALL of the electoral votes go to the winner?

Either split the electoral votes along the popular vote ratio, or maybe do it by district so the rural folk get more say as well.

wouldn't the essentially be a popular vote with smaller numbers?

 

[Striderxdj]

If a state is worth 55 points and one side barely wins the state, why should ALL of the electoral votes go to the winner?

Either split the electoral votes along the popular vote ratio, or maybe do it by district so the rural folk get more say as well.

Both of these things would essentially stack the deck for the GOP, and giving 256 hillbilly idiots in a gerrymandered rural district any say remotely close to the hundreds of thousands in a city is laughable.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

wouldn't the essentially be a popular vote with smaller numbers?

If doNE the ratio way yes, if done by district it'd be a bit different

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Both of these things would essentially stack the deck for the GOP, and giving 256 hillbilly idiots in a gerrymandered rural district any say remotely close to the hundreds of thousands in a city is laughable.

Popular vote stacks for the gop? How?

 

[Lead]

I'm OK with losing. I'm resentful of my hollow vote

My point is your definition of hollow is the same either way. In an electoral race, it's all or nothing at the state level. In a popular vote race, it's all or nothing at a national level. You vote counts in both cases but through a different method

 

[mcveteran81]

What if they changed the all or nothing and broke it down by ratio?

That would be amazing. I posted on this earlier in the year. It makes no sense for states to have winner take all. It doesn't represent adequately the population of voters.

The electorate is very inefficient and archaic since its inception back at the founding of this country.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

There popular vote result hasn't matched with the electoral result three times in the nations history and two was over a century back. It doesn't matter as much as your saying it does

True but it also discourage people from voting. Republicans in california or democrats in Texas, for example. Maybe if discouraged voters voted there would be more cases like that.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

That would be amazing. I posted on this earlier in the year. It makes no sense for states to have winner take all. It doesn't represent adequately the population of voters.

The electorate is very inefficient and archaic since its inception back at the founding of this country.

Or just have popular vote for president.

 

[lifelessheap]

As a Californian I support the 6 californias initiative. The state is too big and too diverse for everything to be decided in Sacramento. The people of the Central Valley have nothing in common with people in the Bay area or SoCal.

I want to live in the state of Jefferson.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Electoral college leaves millions of voters disenfranchised
it would be way worse without the electoral college, we would have the large cities deciding elections and all rural and most states wouldn't have a say in the election process

What happened to "one man, one vote"?

How are people in NYC offsetting my vote for my preferred presidential candidate any different than people in my own city or state doing so? Because that's what happens now, where I live, with the EC.

With the EC, when a person on the right lives in a firmly blue state, or a person on the left lives in a firmly red one, the logical conclusion becomes: "Why waste my time casting a vote?"

That attitude does not foster healthy democracy.

 

[Lead]

True but it also discourage people from voting. Republicans in california or democrats in Texas, for example. Maybe if discouraged voters voted there would be more cases like that.

Your vote actually matters more in an electoral map if you go by one vote divided by the state total vote instead of the national vote. Like I said though, both m methods have only been in conflict once in a century. If it's popular vote, toss up states go out the window and aren't focused on anymore. That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending how the new strategies play out