Proposed fix to the Electoral College. (This COULD work!)

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
I was discussing the election with a co-worker and he thought that it should be based on the popular vote. I said that if that was the case, candidates would only campaign in high population areas and the rural parts would be overlooked. He then modified it and I think it's a head-slapping, "Whoa! Why didn't I think of this?" good idea. Check it out:

Electoral votes would be assigned on a PER DISTRICT basis, with the winner of that district's popular vote getting the electoral vote for that district and then the 2 Senate electoral votes going to the overall popular vote getter for the state.

For example: Florida has 25 electoral votes. (23 House Districts and 2 Senators) According to this graphic it looks like Gore won in the heavy urban areas and Bush won in the country. Let's say that Gore won 8 districts and the overall vote count. That would give him 10 electorals and Bush would get the other 15. It's be less than the winner-take-all 25, but it would be more representative that the "guy with 50.1% takes all" situation we have now.

Gore looks to be about 200,000 votes ahead in the popular vote, but Bush won 30 states to Gore's 20. Should a few high-population states overrule the majority of smaller states?

What do you guys think?
 

BlkDragon6

Senior member
Jan 7, 2000
270
0
0
Of course they should. The majority rules, and if the majority of people are in a few states, then that's the way it is. Now imagine if you're one of the people in the high population states and you saw that your state vote had the same effects as a state vote with a sufficently lower number of people. Wouldn't that piss ya off just a bit?
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
The imbalance in population is why the Founders set up the House and the Senate. If we just had Big Dog vs. Little Dog government, the Big Dogs would all win. Should people all move to the cities so that their voices count?
 

ride525

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,379
0
0
In a popular vote each person's vote would count the same.
A person in the Big City counts the same as a person in the small city.

That's the fairest for everyone.....the president should be elected by the most votes...period.

No more electoral college.
 

BlkDragon6

Senior member
Jan 7, 2000
270
0
0
Should people in big cities spread out evenly all across america so there is no population majority? I personally don't think so.
 

AudioBitch

Member
Oct 15, 2000
46
0
0
we can't get rid of the electoral college. this is the best way we can do it. Neither way, either popular or electoral, is perfect, but it is the best.

if you go popular vote, there would be people influencing votes through money, violence, or other means. Also, the average joe doesn't care enough to follow the politics and understand everything.

we need to find a better way to work the votes...maybe a survey of all kinds of people from every class and type of work would do...who knos..but the electoral college is here for now
 

DefRef

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
4,041
1
81
Surveys said that Bush would win with a 2%-9% margin. So much for surveys.

States won: Gore 19, Bush 29, Unknown 2
Electoral votes: Bush 246, Gore 260
Popular vote: Bush - 48,783,852 - 48.1%, Gore - 48,977,281 - 48.3%

Bush is less than 200,000 behind in the popular vote and has won 50% more states, but has 8% fewer electorals votes. I don't know how anyone could honestly call 2/10th of 1% "the will of the People". Heck, under Florida rules, they'd recount the whole thing.

A testament to the weakness of both candidates.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS