Expand the electoral collage with 100?

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,647
5,355
136
Here in Denmark we have a system where some politicians are voted in locally and some (~23%) are given their mandate based on the nationwide result. That is to ensure that the "popular vote" wins, even though there can be local variation.

Would it be an idea to have the same as you have now in your presidential election system, and then add 100 extra members, which would be distributed according to the nationwide result?
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
I think regardless of the result of this election, dramatic changes to the way we vote need to occur. I don't know what that'll require but this simply cannot continue.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,080
10,880
136
I think regardless of the result of this election, dramatic changes to the way we vote need to occur. I don't know what that'll require but this simply cannot continue.
Popular vote instead of electoral college for one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
Here in Denmark we have a system where some politicians are voted in locally and some (~23%) are given their mandate based on the nationwide result. That is to ensure that the "popular vote" wins, even though there can be local variation.

Would it be an idea to have the same as you have now in your presidential election system, and then add 100 extra members, which would be distributed according to the nationwide result?
That negates the entire point of having the electoral collage.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
My only hope and we are not too far away from it is the National Popular Vote Compact.
Basically enough States band together who in total offer 270+ EC votes and they all agree their EC voters will vote for the popular vote winner.
I am more than confident it will be challenged in Court if it ever becomes active.
Simply put in essence you are creating one big “virtual” State with 270 or more EC votes.

 

DisarmedDespot

Senior member
Jun 2, 2016
591
592
136
At the very least, it's getting harder and harder to justify the EC's existence. We might still be looking at the third election in two decades where the popular vote winner loses the EC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
Here in Denmark we have a system where some politicians are voted in locally and some (~23%) are given their mandate based on the nationwide result. That is to ensure that the "popular vote" wins, even though there can be local variation.

Would it be an idea to have the same as you have now in your presidential election system, and then add 100 extra members, which would be distributed according to the nationwide result?

I had no idea you were in Denmark. Besides my wife the most fun best girlfriend was Danish.
You are a lucky guy.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136

Of the Danish girl, none they have been lost. She was pretty and doing stuff even trivial stuff was fun with her.
She was adopted and had Indian decent (not American Indian), she was tan and dark haired. One time she told me she felt really exotic in Denmark with her dark features. She didn’t feel the same way in America.
This was early to mid 90s
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
You know what, I couldn't agree more. :)

The only thing I could wish for is more sleep. Three girls @ 3, 2 and 7md is a handful.
From what friends have told me - just wait till all three are teenagers, you'll wish sleep was your biggest problem :p
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,602
8,508
136


denmark-copenhagen-canal.adapt.945.1.jpg


Not difficult to google for yourself, mind.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,905
16,171
126
Just scrap EC. One person one vote for president. Distribute seats by population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,878
2,712
136
The electoral college must stay. Simple tyranny of the majority is never good. Government is already a blunt instrument as it is. Tbe choosers of leaders have no understanding of how to rule beyond their locale(if at that), and thus should not have unbridled power over areas where they have no experience with.

Many states are already monopolized by one party or another. It is extremely dangerous if the entire country falls into a political trifecta. It's kind of okay for an individual state to fall into such a state because the scope of control is limited to only that state, but unbridled and complacency, and corruption is usually not too far behind.

For the U.S simple majority rule pretty much just means being dominated by the most powerful state in the nation, which would be California.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,905
16,171
126
The electoral college must stay. Simple tyranny of the majority is never good. Government is already a blunt instrument as it is. Tbe choosers of leaders have no understanding of how to rule beyond their locale(if at that), and thus should not have unbridled power over areas where they have no experience with.

Many states are already monopolized by one party or another. It is extremely dangerous if the entire country falls into a political trifecta. It's kind of okay for an individual state to fall into such a state because the scope of control is limited to only that state, but unbridled and complacency, and corruption is usually not too far behind.

For the U.S simple majority rule pretty much just means being dominated by the most powerful state in the nation, which would be California.


Yeah because every other democracy on the planet is doing it wrong :rolleyes:
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,080
10,880
136
The electoral college must stay. Simple tyranny of the majority is never good. Government is already a blunt instrument as it is. Tbe choosers of leaders have no understanding of how to rule beyond their locale(if at that), and thus should not have unbridled power over areas where they have no experience with.

Many states are already monopolized by one party or another. It is extremely dangerous if the entire country falls into a political trifecta. It's kind of okay for an individual state to fall into such a state because the scope of control is limited to only that state, but unbridled and complacency, and corruption is usually not too far behind.

For the U.S simple majority rule pretty much just means being dominated by the most powerful state in the nation, which would be California.
The EC completely devalues an individual's vote based on where they live, and disenfranchises the voters who lose the popular vote.
Arguably the only people whose votes matter are those who live in swing states.

If you vote for Trump in CA, your vote counts 0 towards his reelection and does not matter.

If you vote Biden in mississippi, your vote counts 0 towards his election and does not matter.

That is patently absurd. Your vote should matter regardless of where you live. The EC makes it so it doesn't, and when it does, that your vote is more or less impactful depending on the state
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,878
2,712
136
The slave states lost over a hundred and fifty years ago. I think it's okay to get rid of the EC system designed to give slavers an unearned electoral advantage.
Simple genetic fallacy. That it was used for that particular purpose does not mean that it could prove beneficial in the future for the other side. You couldn't have sanctuary cities if lockstep compliance with the federal government was the rule of the law.

The Southern minds then were immoral but they were very wise legally.