Ditch the electoral college in favor of majority or plurality popular vote?

[momeNt]

What are you guys in favor of?

Should there be a majority vote, in which case hillary and donald would have a run-off and eliminating the other choices. Or just a plurality?

 

[Brainonska511]

As I just mentioned in another thread on this subject, you could just get all the states to tweak how they give out their delegates.

States could assign them by proportion of the at-large vote, which would encourage people in safe states to vote, while also preventing large population centers from completely dominating the board since you'd still need electoral votes to win. It might at least make it seem more fair since all of a states electoral votes wouldn't simply be given to the winner who got 1 more vote than the person in second place.

It would also avoid the issue of a lack of majority in a popular vote setting (where no one has more than 50% of the vote).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

As I just mentioned in another thread on this subject, you could just get all the states to tweak how they give out their delegates.

States could assign them by proportion of the at-large vote, which would encourage people in safe states to vote, while also preventing large population centers from completely dominating the board since you'd still need electoral votes to win. It might at least make it seem more fair since all of a states electoral votes wouldn't simply be given to the winner who got 1 more vote than the person in second place.

It would also avoid the issue of a lack of majority in a popular vote setting (where no one has more than 50% of the vote).

Great so we'd get Presidential Gerry Mandered elections too. No thanks.

I'm a popular vote guy but I have to think about it more because this is a simple question that is full of unexpected consequences.

 

[Brainonska511]

Great so we'd get Presidential Gerry Mandered elections too. No thanks.

I'm a popular vote guy but I have to think about it more because this is a simple question that is full of unexpected consequences.

I think you're thinking of district-based voting. Then you'd have gerrymandered presidential elections. I'm taking about proportional across the entire state.

So in the case of NY, where Trump won a little under 40% of the vote but received no electoral votes, he'd get ~40% of NY's electoral votes. While in Texas, where the situation was reversed for Clinton, she would have received a portion of those votes.

 

[glenn1]

Doesn't make a huge difference to me either way. Not opposed to a change but I don't think our current method is unjust either.

That being said, if we practiced common sense federalism and "mind your own business" manners again all this would be moot. The biggest problem with modern elections isn't the Electoral College vs. popular vote, but rather the winners think their victory gives them carte blanche to completely impose whatever lifestyle changes they want to the other side and turn them (forcibly if need be) into better people with better "moral" views that of course always match the winners' views. Rural folks don't want "urban values" forced upon them and vice versa, yet after every election that's exactly what the winners attempt to do.

 

[TuSpockShakur]

The butt hurt in all these threads is so fun to witness.