New Bill to eliminate the Electoral College

Feb 6, 2002
16,899
321
126
#2
Not now, too self serving. Let's start with

eliminate gerrymandering
Fix the voting rights act.
Reform voting process nationwide (enact minimum standards)

I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment adding the right to vote. That would keep states from enacting laws to disenfranchise minorities.

I think these would fix 80-90% of our problems with voting.

One more thing. How about making state primary dates random each year? Small states should not call the shots every year.
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
#4
Wouldn't just a very few high population states decide the election then?
Yes, majority rule. I’d predict fewer extreme candidates on both sides too.

Certainly not fair how a vote in Alaska counts 4 times as much at deciding whom the President is than mine.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#5
Wouldn't just a very few high population states decide the election then?
No, the states wouldn’t matter, it would just be total votes by all the people represented by the office. This is how we elect literally every other position in the country and it works fine. Regardless, the system we have now just makes it so a few medium population states decide the election.

Eliminating the electoral college achieves one simple goal that we should all support: since the president represents all citizens the president should be the person that the most citizens select to be president.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#6
Yes, majority rule. I’d predict fewer extreme candidates on both sides too.

Certainly not fair how a vote in Alaska counts 4 times as much at deciding whom the President is than mine.
I think that’s a silly way of looking at it though as states are not even remotely homogenous. People in NYC have little in common with people upstate and vote radically differently yet NYC controls the state’s electoral votes. Same in California and Texas.

If you eliminate the electoral college the votes of upstate New Yorkers actually count, as do the votes of people in Austin. The way we have it now where if one person gets 10,000,000 votes and the other one gets 10,000,001 we act as if all 20 million supported the same guy is insane. Let everyone’s vote count for itself.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
#7
Wouldn't just a very few high population states decide the election then?
No. Only a few swing states decide presidential elections in the current system, anyway. I try not to post videos, but this is a good one & well worth the time-


As for the proposition in the OP there are much easier ways to nullify the electoral college, like the national popular vote compact proposal.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#8
No. Only a few swing states decide presidential elections in the current system, anyway. I try not to post videos, but this is a good one & well worth the time-


As for the proposition in the OP there are much easier ways to nullify the electoral college, like the national popular vote compact proposal.
Yes, honestly I think a great progressive idea should be to put a national popular vote proposal up in every state that has a ballot initiative system.
 
Dec 10, 2005
19,149
26
126
#10
Wouldn't just a very few high population states decide the election then?
A few medium population states already decide the elections.

What's wrong with having the president choosen by the majority of the population?
 
Jul 20, 2001
53,617
554
126
#11
A few medium population states already decide the elections.

What's wrong with having the president choosen by the majority of the population?
People vote occasionally vote their self interests. The EC keeps that from mattering.
 
Jul 12, 2006
92,224
657
136
#12
Wouldn't just a very few high population states decide the election then?
Considering how very large states like CA, with very large conservative populations that often don't matter outside of the 3 major cities in the entire state, and Texas, with very large liberal populations that don't matter, because of the highly populated conservative rural areas, their votes would now be more consequential.

The state effect would be completely eliminated. It's actually exactly what you want. This is for federal office, only, where the popular vote is actually important. Keep local, state politics within state-wide voting.

Politics has become far too national as it is (which is funny, because this is the sort of thing that conservatives claim to hate, but love to support again and again with their posturing and voting habits), so it's really a win-win-win for the various party-based paradigms....assuming people are actually honest about the things they claim.

Besides, once Texas turns full Blue within the next 10 years, you'll suddenly realize why the EC is a terrible idea, lol.
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
#13
Considering how very large states like CA, with very large conservative populations that often don't matter outside of the 3 major cities in the entire state, and Texas, with very large liberal populations that don't matter, because of the highly populated conservative rural areas, their votes would now be more consequential.

The state effect would be completely eliminated. It's actually exactly what you want. This is for federal office, only, where the popular vote is actually important. Keep local, state politics within state-wide voting.

Politics has become far too national as it is (which is funny, because this is the sort of thing that conservatives claim to hate, but love to support again and again with their posturing and voting habits), so it's really a win-win-win for the various party-based paradigms....assuming people are actually honest about the things they claim.
Well said and that is exactly my point. One person, one vote and every vote is counted.
Vote for a 3rd party and not feel your vote was wasted
No more I don’t vote because I live in a liberal/conservative state and it just won’t matter
No more targeting the handful of States that decide an election everyone gets targeted for campaign ads and commitments
Plus as a bonus no more seeing candidates go to some stupid fucking fair to serve hotdogs and wear dumb hats. Plus fewer political ads in those same states.
 
Jan 25, 2011
13,155
601
146
#14
Wouldn't just a very few high population states decide the election then?
That's where you'd possibly the biggest difference. Right now many people just don't bother voting since they know what direction their state will go. If their vote suddenly counted equally to all others they might actually take the time to cast a ballot.
 

hal2kilo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2009
9,089
63
126
#15
Yes, majority rule. I’d predict fewer extreme candidates on both sides too.

Certainly not fair how a vote in Alaska counts 4 times as much at deciding whom the President is than mine.
Just get rid of the Senate.
 
Nov 4, 2004
22,935
250
126
#16
Not now, too self serving. Let's start with

eliminate gerrymandering
Fix the voting rights act.
Reform voting process nationwide (enact minimum standards)

I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment adding the right to vote. That would keep states from enacting laws to disenfranchise minorities.

I think these would fix 80-90% of our problems with voting.

One more thing. How about making state primary dates random each year? Small states should not call the shots every year.
I disagree with it being self serving. It's serving constituents the way it should be.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,056
128
126
#17
You could also divide the electoral votes according to the popular vote percentages for each candidate.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
#18
You could also divide the electoral votes according to the popular vote percentages for each candidate.
If we're doing that why not just forget electoral votes entirely and go by popular vote? It would be the same idea, only fairer.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,056
128
126
#19
If we're doing that why not just forget electoral votes entirely and go by popular vote? It would be the same idea, only fairer.
It might be easier to get the idea considered?
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
727
5
91
#20
If we're doing that why not just forget electoral votes entirely and go by popular vote? It would be the same idea, only fairer.
It seems highly unlikely that the electoral college will ever be removed. My reasoning is that in order for it to be removed 1 party has to have an extreme majority. Do you think a party with an extreme majority would ever support such a proposal? It is like somebody who is already winning to try to stack the cards further in their favor.

To take your idea further...why not vote on issues in a general populist vote rather than congress doing it? If the public could get to vote for term limits/retirement packages/healthcare for congress, it would probably pass the first time around. Congress will never vote in favor of things that impact them personally.

How about issues concerning healthcare,energy or the wall. Let there be cases were the public can vote on issues that force changes to the direction of the country. Congress are dinosaurs that simply try to hang on to that power until their dead. It doesn't matter who you vote for, they always just endlessly block each other from any progress at all.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,393
225
136
#21
No. Only a few swing states decide presidential elections in the current system, anyway. I try not to post videos, but this is a good one & well worth the time-


As for the proposition in the OP there are much easier ways to nullify the electoral college, like the national popular vote compact proposal.

Still needs passage in states with a total of 98 electoral votes.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

Maybe some day.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,393
225
136
#22
I notice that Cohen also has a bill to preclude the POTUS from pardoning himself and his family. I'm sure the GOP will be clamoring to support that one as well.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
#23
I disagree with it being self serving. It's serving constituents the way it should be.
Meh. It's base pandering of a sort, considering it has every chance of a snowball in Hell.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
97,868
140
126
#25
Wouldn't just a very few high population states decide the election then?
No. People in states don't vote as uniform blocks. That's never been the case. Ironically, the EC artificially creates that voting block.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY