Title: Electoral system change
Post by: Hash on July 08, 2007, 01:45:06 AM
Option 1: self-explanatory
Option 2: All Reps and Senators elect a President from nominated candidates
Option 3: self-explanatory
Option 4: All Reps, Senators, and all state legislators elect a President from nominated candidates.
Option 5: Normal popular vote in 50 states+state electoral votes distributed proportionally to candidates (based on PV) by state. 5% threshold to gain electoral votes of that state.
Decide.
Option 2: All Reps and Senators elect a President from nominated candidates
Option 3: self-explanatory
Option 4: All Reps, Senators, and all state legislators elect a President from nominated candidates.
Option 5: Normal popular vote in 50 states+state electoral votes distributed proportionally to candidates (based on PV) by state. 5% threshold to gain electoral votes of that state.
Decide.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: Peter on July 08, 2007, 07:21:00 AM
Option 5 is I believe similar to the Colorado Amendment 36 proposed at the 2004 elections.
You could also include the Maine/Nebraska method of assigning electoral votes as a possibility.
You could also include the Maine/Nebraska method of assigning electoral votes as a possibility.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: minionofmidas on July 08, 2007, 09:37:13 AM
If he remains as powerful as he currently is (but I would change that if I could) then nationwide popular vote. If I could remake the president as more of a figurehead, I prefer an indirect system of election.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 08, 2007, 12:48:11 PM
Definitely keep the Electoral college, but going nationwide to a 2 at large 1 per CD system, a system of single member ED's, or using PV on a state by state basis would all be improvements.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: Harry Hayfield on July 20, 2007, 11:42:02 AM
I'd like to put forward the following method for discussion.
Keep the electoral college as it is, but instead of a block vote allow each Congressional District to elect one delegate (so that it's no longer who gets the most votes in a states wins the entire delegation) and then allow the extra two delegates from the Senatorial section to go to the candidate who gets the most votes. So take for example a state like CA, say it votes and sends 33 Dem delegates and 20 GOP delegates and then because the Dems poll the most votes, the Dems take the extra two seats giving 35 Dems to 20 GOP (which seems more equitable than Dem 55 GOP 0)
Keep the electoral college as it is, but instead of a block vote allow each Congressional District to elect one delegate (so that it's no longer who gets the most votes in a states wins the entire delegation) and then allow the extra two delegates from the Senatorial section to go to the candidate who gets the most votes. So take for example a state like CA, say it votes and sends 33 Dem delegates and 20 GOP delegates and then because the Dems poll the most votes, the Dems take the extra two seats giving 35 Dems to 20 GOP (which seems more equitable than Dem 55 GOP 0)
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on July 26, 2007, 08:36:01 PM
I'd like to put forward the following method for discussion.
Keep the electoral college as it is, but instead of a block vote allow each Congressional District to elect one delegate (so that it's no longer who gets the most votes in a states wins the entire delegation) and then allow the extra two delegates from the Senatorial section to go to the candidate who gets the most votes. So take for example a state like CA, say it votes and sends 33 Dem delegates and 20 GOP delegates and then because the Dems poll the most votes, the Dems take the extra two seats giving 35 Dems to 20 GOP (which seems more equitable than Dem 55 GOP 0)
Keep the electoral college as it is, but instead of a block vote allow each Congressional District to elect one delegate (so that it's no longer who gets the most votes in a states wins the entire delegation) and then allow the extra two delegates from the Senatorial section to go to the candidate who gets the most votes. So take for example a state like CA, say it votes and sends 33 Dem delegates and 20 GOP delegates and then because the Dems poll the most votes, the Dems take the extra two seats giving 35 Dems to 20 GOP (which seems more equitable than Dem 55 GOP 0)
That system immediatly runs into problems once you hit states with a very small number of Electoral votes.. Especially states with just 3.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: Frodo on July 28, 2007, 04:56:47 PM
Option 5.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: Undisguised Sockpuppet on September 14, 2007, 03:16:38 PM
Other: A parliementary system plus proportional representation
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: dead0man on November 20, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
The Electoral College keeps the small states semi-relevent during Presidential elections. The Constitution wouldn't have gotten past without it. Ya got to keep it or all the small states are leaving.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 20, 2007, 07:43:12 PM
The Electoral College keeps the small states semi-relevent during Presidential elections. The Constitution wouldn't have gotten past without it. Ya got to keep it or all the small states are leaving.
If the small states leave, the small states die. (definitely economically, perhaps literally)
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on November 20, 2007, 10:02:52 PM
The Electoral College keeps the small states semi-relevant during Presidential elections. The Constitution wouldn't have gotten past without it. Ya got to keep it or all the small states are leaving.
If the small states leave, the small states die. (definitely economically, perhaps literally)
That only matters if the small states have an economy. Vermont had repulsed New York's efforts to claim it.
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: dead0man on November 21, 2007, 12:14:06 AM
The Electoral College keeps the small states semi-relevent during Presidential elections. The Constitution wouldn't have gotten past without it. Ya got to keep it or all the small states are leaving.
If the small states leave, the small states die. (definitely economically, perhaps literally)
Title: Re: Electoral system change
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 21, 2007, 04:20:05 PM
The Electoral College keeps the small states semi-relevent during Presidential elections. The Constitution wouldn't have gotten past without it. Ya got to keep it or all the small states are leaving.
If the small states leave, the small states die. (definitely economically, perhaps literally)
Even then. Here is a map of what I consider small states (in gray):
(
As you can see, WV, RI and DE are isolated, NH, VT, and ME are connected to each other, and the rest are one large island of gray. This "island" comprises the area of the United States with the most sluggish economy. What's more, it is almost landlocked, and its only ports would be Biloxi and Mobile. It would have to make a lot of imports, and what could it export? Food? The United States would still have the most fertile food producing region (CA's Central Valley), so it would have no shortage of food. DOn't even get me started on the awesome miltiary weakness of such a state. :)? :(? Your choice.