• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Expand the electoral collage with 100?

biostud

biostud

Lifer
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 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.
 
biostud said:
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?
Click to expand...
That negates the entire point of having the electoral collage.
 
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.

en.m.wikipedia.org

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
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.
 
biostud said:
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?
Click to expand...

I had no idea you were in Denmark. Besides my wife the most fun best girlfriend was Danish.
You are a lucky guy.
 
IronWing said:
pics?
Click to expand...

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
 
biostud said:
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.
Click to expand...
From what friends have told me - just wait till all three are teenagers, you'll wish sleep was your biggest problem 😛
 
IronWing said:
pics?
Click to expand...


denmark-copenhagen-canal.adapt.945.1.jpg


Not difficult to google for yourself, mind.
 
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.
 
Torn Mind said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yeah because every other democracy on the planet is doing it wrong 🙄
 
Torn Mind said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
IronWing said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top