Electoral votes in the states should be split and awarded to the winner in each congressional district and then 2 proxy senate seat votes go to the winner of the state overall.

The electoral college better represents the nation as a whole. People in California are out of touch with the reality of 90% of Americans. That is why the state of California is so dysfunctional. The fact that HRC had 2.5 million more votes in California and is only winning the popular vote by 300,000 speaks volumes to the rest of the country, it's expectations, and it's needs. Had the CalifornExit happened before the vote, Trump would have won the popular vote by 2.2 million votes. Let that sink in.

 

So why let California vote at all? I really don't understand these calls to diminish votes from a particular area or city, especially using the argument that they are "out of touch". It's almost insulting...kind of like saying "you're not smart enough" to vote. Of course, that's kind of why the electoral college was put together in the first place....

So why let California vote at all? I really don't understand these calls to diminish votes from a particular area or city, especially using the argument that they are "out of touch". It's almost insulting...kind of like saying "you're not smart enough" to vote. Of course, that's kind of why the electoral college was put together in the first place....

 

I imagine if I made similar calls to not allow backward Southern or Plains states to vote I'd labeled all sorts of things on here. But, in the parlance of Breitbart, "greentards" live in California, so it's ok.

I am not calling for a diminished vote. The EC has been in place for 200 years. I am calling to not change it. You are calling to change a system that is not broken and has worked for 200 years. We are the United STATES of America. California had 55 EC votes. Their votes counted. Trump won 31 states. The popular vote is too skewed and generic.

 

It has nothing to do with Californians being smart. The people in California have no idea what life in Ohio is like and vice versa. The majority of the states in our country are more like Ohio than they are California. That is a fact.

I am not calling for a diminished vote. The EC has been in place for 200 years. I am calling to not change it. You are calling to change a system that is not broken and has worked for 200 years. We are the United STATES of America. California had 55 EC votes. Their votes counted. Trump won 31 states. The popular vote is too skewed and generic.

 

It has nothing to do with Californians being smart. The people in California have no idea what life in Ohio is like and vice versa. The majority of the states in our country are more like Ohio than they are California. That is a fact.

 

I guess I'm confused by the phrase "more like". What exactly does that mean, and why is it important? More like in what way?? Is that "way" better than California's "way"? And how or why should a state's "way" matter in voting? These are mostly rhetorical questions, but understand, your argument that California is "different" sounds a lot like "they shouldn't have as much say because they are different".

Electoral votes in the states should be split and awarded to the winner in each congressional district and then 2 proxy senate seat votes go to the winner of the state overall.

 

I checked on the 2012 presidential race and if it had been done this way Romney would have won. He had a 25 district win over Obama.

So that method would work for me. :sneaky:

I checked on the 2012 presidential race and if it had been done this way Romney would have won. He had a 25 district win over Obama.

So that method would work for me. :sneaky:

 

That must have been a huge amount of work?

I guess I'm confused by the phrase "more like". What exactly does that mean, and why is it important? More like in what way?? Is that "way" better than California's "way"? And how or why should a state's "way" matter in voting? These are mostly rhetorical questions, but understand, your argument that California is "different" sounds a lot like "they shouldn't have as much say because they are different".

 

More like = Issues faced and problems people want fixed. Issues in California are extremely different than most of the Country. Also, the electoral college is based upon population. It is not the EC's fault that Dems thought they had the election in the bag, so they didn't turn out.

I guess I'm confused by the phrase "more like". What exactly does that mean, and why is it important? More like in what way?? Is that "way" better than California's "way"? And how or why should a state's "way" matter in voting? These are mostly rhetorical questions, but understand, your argument that California is "different" sounds a lot like "they shouldn't have as much say because they are different".

 

If every person in America were required to vote, popular vote would be fine. How many Republican people in California do not vote because they know it doesn't matter? There are 38 million people in California. 8.5 Million voted. That is less than 1/4 of California.

If every person in America were required to vote, popular vote would be fine. How many Republican people in California do not vote because they know it doesn't matter? There are 38 million people in California. 8.5 Million voted. That is less than 1/4 of California.

 

You could argue the Electoral college is why they didn't vote. Maybe if the election was based on Popular vote, more people would be encouraged to vote and our turnout would be much better.

Electoral votes in the states should be split and awarded to the winner in each congressional district and then 2 proxy senate seat votes go to the winner of the state overall.

 

Good idea. I would like to see more analysis like what was mentioned above.

 

I posted the below on this topic in another thread and am re-posting here.

 

On the Electoral College, I want it to stay. I don't want a very few large states to decide the election. Trump and Clinton had to go to New Hampshire at the end of the campaign. That never happens if there is no Electoral College.

 

I do have one big concern though - rogue electors. We have now seen two extremely close elections in the past 5 presidential races. If the race were within say 5 votes, a few electoral college electors could decide to go against their state choice and decide an election. There was one democratic selected elector that stated after becoming an elector that he/she would not vote for Clinton no matter what the state's rules said. There were very possible and real scenarios where this election could have been within one elector vote. I don't want one rogue elector deciding an election. That is where there needs to be reform and new rules but keep the Electoral College.

You could argue the Electoral college is why they didn't vote. Maybe if the election was based on Popular vote, more people would be encouraged to vote and our turnout would be much better.

 

This is something we can agree on. Right or wrong, I have viewed this thread as whining that HRC should have won because she won the popular vote. The EC may very well suppress the vote and if that is the case, then other alternatives may be better. My feeling though is that Democrats would lose a lot more elections without the electoral college. I don't think the result of this election changes.

This is something we can agree on. Right or wrong, I have viewed this thread as whining that HRC should have won because she won the popular vote. The EC may very well suppress the vote and if that is the case, then other alternatives may be better. My feeling though is that Democrats would lose a lot more elections without the electoral college.

 

Well, based on popular vote, the Dems would have won 2 more elections....2000, and 2016. Otherwise, the Electoral College winner has mirrored the popular vote winner. There hasn't been a recent instance of a Republican winning the popular vote but losing the election.

Lots of salty folks running around

Well, based on popular vote, the Dems would have won 2 more elections....2000, and 2016. Otherwise, the Electoral College winner has mirrored the popular vote winner. There hasn't been a recent instance of a Republican winning the popular vote but losing the election.

 

Exactly, but how many California and New York Republicans stay home because of the EC? If there was a popular vote would more of these people turn out? I don't know. If the EC is suppressing the vote in California and New York, it is not suppressing the Dem vote, it is suppressing the Republican vote. A popular vote may change the views of many people who do not vote.