[Rancid]

They first need to take away their guns before they have the balls to try something like that.

Try something like split state electoral votes? Nebraska and Maine already do this.

The winner take all approach is what prevents 3rd parties from gain influence. It's in the interest of both Rs and Ds to maintain the winner take all system. If you are a fan of the two party system, then I could see why you would be against vote splitting.

Anyway, Texas is a part of the group that is also trying to change this. Seems (I stress seems because I've not looked into it deeper) bipartisan.

Splitting votes would basically give the losing party in a given state some gains. In Texas, the democrats would gain, in California the Republicans would gain. etc. etc. It would also open up opportunities for 3rd parties as well.


Question to the wider audience:
Would splitting electoral college votes effectively create a popular vote?

[Finfinder]

All I know is if the people of the state vote for a candidate and that states give the electoral vote to the person who lost its not going to work.

Then again what the Democrats will get, because face it the Democrats are the only ones who want this because of their of lust and greed for power, is a Democrat president and a super majority opposition party on congress.


Just another example of how the Democrats cannot win unless they lie, cheat, or change the rules. You cannot sustain that way, Democrats are on the edge of falling to pieces right now, this rhetoric is the last ditch effort before they implode. It's passive agressive for we don't have a chance in hell to beat president Trump.

[Drlee]

Of course your comments about democrats lying are just trolling and childish.

All I know is if the people of the state vote for a candidate and that states give the electoral vote to the person who lost its not going to work.

Sure it would. Tell us how it is not working in the two states that do it now.

I believe in states rights and local control of state politics. So if my congressional district votes for Trump then I want my vote to go to him. This allows much better representation of the voters of a state than, say California, where every republican vote in the most populous state in the union went to a democratic candidate.

It is sad that republicans and so-called conservatives have abandoned the will of the people. Voter suppression and Gerrymandering is their only hope these days.

[Rancid]

not going to work.

Why?

[Finfinder]

Of course your comments about democrats lying are just trolling and childish.


Sure it would. Tell us how it is not working in the two states that do it now.

I believe in states rights and local control of state politics. So if my congressional district votes for Trump then I want my vote to go to him. This allows much better representation of the voters of a state than, say California, where every republican vote in the most populous state in the union went to a democratic candidate.


It is sad that republicans and so-called conservatives have abandoned the will of the people. Voter suppression and Gerrymandering is their only hope these days.

What I said was true or you wouldn't have commented on it then. Again you make my point the Republicans work within the rules and you don't like it. Elections have consequences and until the Democrats lose the political will to support shit crook candidates like Hillary Clinton (and there is a good chance she might run again at least she wants too badly) it's going to be more losses. This is just passive aggressive for the Dems they know they have little chance. Shit candidates and nothing to run

[Rancid]

Forget about democrats and republicans for a minute. Why wouldn't it work? Why would it be bad for America?

[Finfinder]

Forget about democrats and republicans for a minute. Why wouldn't it work? Why would it be bad for America?

Its simple, if you took the Trump /Clinton election and split the electoral votes none of the candidates would have enough votes( a majority) to become the president elect. We would have no president.

[late]

1) The wheat belt isn't moving into Canada

2) the farmers are choosing to plant more profitable commodities like corn and soybeans.

3) So you support forcing companies to go out of business with severe taxing so smaller companies can exist with higher prices to consumers.

4) Democrats can't win at anything unless they cheat, lie, or change the rules.

1) Canadian farmers have started growing wheat. IOW, it already has.. As has the region that is too warm for wheat. In the real world, that is.

2) Trump soybeans..

3) Carbon taxes are good for the economy. The problem with industrial farming is that it needs cheap oil. It has several other problems as well. We need to grow a generation of farmers (most farmers now are near retirement) and that's going to mean making farming desirable. Of course, all that's in the real world..


4) That deserves a thread of its own. Not that anyone has the patience to type the thousands of times Republicans have lied, cheated and stole. If you take the time to study it, esp. voting, it is literally astonishing how much of it there is.

[Godstud]

@Finfinder That's funny. 3 or more party systems work in a great many other countries, just fine. I think you're making up a fantasy scenario where somehow everyone gets the same number of votes.

[Finfinder]

1) Canadian farmers have started growing wheat. IOW, it already has.. As has the region that is too warm for wheat. In the real world, that is.

2) Trump soybeans..

3) Carbon taxes are good for the economy. The problem with industrial farming is that it needs cheap oil. It has several other problems as well. We need to grow a generation of farmers (most farmers now are near retirement) and that's going to mean making farming desirable. Of course, all that's in the real world..


4) That deserves a thread of its own. Not that anyone has the patience to type the thousands of times Republicans have lied, cheated and stole. If you take the time to study it, esp. voting, it is literally astonishing how much of it there is.

Canada has always been a wheat belt and there are many varieties of wheat. Has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with profitability.

@Finfinder That's funny. 3 or more party systems work in a great many other countries, just fine. I think you're making up a fantasy scenario where somehow everyone gets the same number of votes.

It's a fact can you make an effort to refute what I said was wrong?

[Godstud]

@Finfinder It's not a fact. You're making up fanciful stories. What you said was wrong. You need only look at countries with more than 2 parties to confirm this.

[Rancid]

Its simple, if you took the Trump /Clinton election and split the electoral votes none of the candidates would have enough votes( a majority) to become the president elect. We would have no president.

You really cannot make a post without mentioning a democrat?

Anyway, hypothetically if the system were changed to electoral vote splitting along with a mechanism to settle a non-majority election (like a run-off). Are you saying this would be bad for America? If yes, why? Again, forget Democrats and Republicans. This question is a philosophical.


Another question, implicitly you are saying that yo approve of the two party system, Correct? That's what the winner state all system ensured.

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder That's funny. 3 or more party systems work in a great many other countries, just fine. I think you're making up a fantasy scenario where somehow everyone gets the same number of votes.

No Im not. In the last election Clinton would have not earned a majority of the electoral votes, she might gain electoral votes but not the majority required to become the president elect.

You really cannot make a post without mentioning a democrat? .

It seems fitting because they are the only ones to ever bring this up.

Anyway, hypothetically if the system were changed to electoral vote splitting along with a mechanism to settle a non-majority election (like a run-off). Are you saying this would be bad for America? If yes, why? Again, forget Democrats and Republicans. This question is a philosophical.

That's because the only reason we are having this discussion is because on party has lost. When I say lost I mean cremated continually, starting from the massive losses in the Obama era and now the presidency. Why are we even having this discussion I wonder why ?

Yes it would be bad for America because what we have now is good and the only reason we are hearing people complain about it is because it worked. The people on the losing side can't and won't let things go.Look at what congress is focusing on. I liken the system we have I don't need to get philosophical about it.

Another question, implicitly you are saying that yo approve of the two party system, Correct? That's what the winner state all system ensured.

What other choice do I have ? Why would I throw away my vote on someone who doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected. Its as easy as I prefer a cetain style of judge.

[Rancid]

Yes it would be bad for America because what we have now is good and the only reason we are hearing people complain about it is because it worked.

I recall this discussion coming up a lot even when Obama was elected, so I question the validity of this statement, but.... whatever...

What other choice do I have ?

A different electoral system (if you wanted it).

[BigSteve]

You really cannot make a post without mentioning a democrat?

We're discussing the popular vote.

Presumably, we're talking about an election in which a Republican would be running against a...

Wait for it...








































Democrat.

[Finfinder]

I recall this discussion coming up a lot even when Obama was elected, so I question the validity of this statement, but.... whatever...



A different electoral system (if you wanted it).

We have a different president ( political party) every 8 years with only a few exceptions.

No I don't buy it that there was this much discussion about it with Obama. Why do you think we are discussing it now? I know but I'm curious as to what you think?

[Rancid]

No I don't buy it that there was this much discussion about it with Obama.

I do remember it. The media didn't talk about it, but was certainly happening in forums and what not.

That said, is the media even talking about that kind of thing with Trump? Sure there's this thread, but on a mass media level, is this really an idea (changing the electoral system) that people are pushing?

Why do you think we are discussing it now? I know but I'm curious as to what you think?

Because democrats are sore losers.

Ultimately, I'm trying to explore this idea at a philosophical level. Hence my questions were along the lines of "how different would things be if electoral votes were split, or if we had a popular vote". I'm thinking it would destroy the two party system. Something both Ds and Rs wouldn't like. Notice you don't see any democrats really calling for a change to the electoral system (at least I haven't seen any). Though, I think they are more interested in a popular vote as that would skew things for them more.

[Rancid]

@Finfinder,

One thing you may not realize, is that I'm not for having the popular vote decide elections. I am open to the idea of more electoral vote splitting. however, I'm not sure any of this would really change anything anyway.

[Pants-of-dog]

Question to the wider audience:
Would splitting electoral college votes effectively create a popular vote?

Apparently not.

https://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math

Many state legislatures are searching for ways to change their statewide winner-take-all rules for allocating Electoral College votes during presidential elections. In its third edition, Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral Votes analyzes two of the three major options available to state leaders: the congressional district system and the whole number proportional system for allocating electoral votes.

The first option is the congressional district system, in which a state gives a candidate one electoral vote for every congressional district a candidate wins and two electoral vote for winning the statewide popular vote.

The second option is the whole number proportional system, in which a state gives electoral votes to candidates according to the proportion of the statewide popular vote each candidate wins. We evaluate these two options according to central criteria for strong democratic electoral systems: majority rule, competitiveness of elections, and equality of votes.



Key findings:

The congressional district system would make the presidential election less meaningfully competitive. Recent elections demonstrate that a smaller percentage of the population lives in current swing congressional districts than in current swing states.
The congressional district system would increase the likelihood of a candidate winning the election without winning a majority of votes nationwide. If it had been used in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won the presidential election over Barack Obama, despite winning 5 million fewer votes nationwide.
The whole number proportional system somewhat expands the number of states with at least one elector in play, but it fails to make all states, or even a majority of states, relevant. States would still be categorized as battlegrounds or spectators.
The whole number proportional system increases the likelihood of contingent elections, in which the president is chosen not by U.S. voters, but by state delegations of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Both systems appear partisan when implemented on a state-by-state basis.
Both systems perpetuate voter inequality between states and congressional districts.


We conclude that neither system sufficiently promotes majority rule, creates competitive elections nationwide, or ensures equality of votes. The third option available to state leaders, the National Popular Vote plan, remains the most fair and democratic.

This is just a summary. The full report is available from the cited page, using a link at the bottom of the page.

[Rancid]

@Pants-of-dog, I'll have to look at that more later.

The congressional district system would increase the likelihood of a candidate winning the election without winning a majority of votes nationwide. If it had been used in 2012, Mitt Romney would have won the presidential election over Barack Obama, despite winning 5 million fewer votes nationwide.

Yea, according to this (forgot to link the site, don't feel like looking it up again) Trump would have still won with vote splitting. I wonder if there are cases where democrat would have won with vote splitting.

Sounds like not much would change, which mean neither party would push for it anyway.