Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 02:51:49 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Electoral Reform
| | | |-+  Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Teddy's Electoral Reform (Electoral College)  (Read 1359 times)
Teddy (IDS Legislator)
nickjbor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8345
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -1.91

View Profile WWW
« on: April 20, 2011, 09:20:28 pm »
Ignore

Changes

Ballot:
The ballot would be an alternative vote. Candidates will be ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. A minimum of 1 and 2 must be cast. This would be a federal law applying to all states, states can then design their ballots as needed.

Numbers:
The number of electoral college votes must always be an odd number to prevent ties.

Counting:
If a candidate does not win electoral votes in a state, then his or her ballots are redistributed, until the only ballots left are cast for candidates winning electoral votes.

In the event of someone not getting a majority of electoral votes, the candidate with the least nationwide (ties to be broken by nationwide popular vote) is dropped, and the counting continues as such.

The electoral college is based on the number of seats in the house and senate. 2 for the senate, and a number between 1 and 50something for the house. This will become important in the new election method system.

The first-place winner of the state wins both "senatorial" electoral college votes.

The remaining electoral votes are distributed proportionally to the vote received by each candidate.
Logged

TEDDY - ARKANSAS - IDS - Liberal Whip



Note to self: use brain more.
Teddy (IDS Legislator)
nickjbor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8345
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -1.91

View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2011, 09:01:22 am »
Ignore

Example using 2008 (selected states)

Alaska. Winner: McCain
(2) - McCain for winning the state
(1) - McCain, proportional share of total
RESULT: 3 McCain

Utah. Winner: McCain
(2) - McCain for winning the state
(2) - McCain, proportional share of total
(1) - Obama, proportional share of total
RESULTS: 4 McCain - 1 Obama

California. Winner: Obama
(2) - Obama for winning the state
(33) - Obama, proportional share of total
(20) - McCain, proportional share of total
RESULTS: 35 Obama - 20 McCain

etc etc


Logged

TEDDY - ARKANSAS - IDS - Liberal Whip



Note to self: use brain more.
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8404
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2011, 09:53:58 am »
Ignore

There are a few problems I see with this (the big one is simply just to ask why not just switch to a national popular vote system...)

Look at Maine, 1992.  With only 316 votes separating Bush and Perot, it would hardly seem fair that Perot get an EV but not Bush (and also that 3/4 EVs go to Clinton with less than 40% of the vote).
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 09:56:59 am by Say no to fascism, impeach Obama. »Logged

Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8404
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2011, 02:07:28 pm »
Ignore

Interestingly, this would not change the outcome of the 2000 election:

Alabama

Bush: 6
Gore: 3

Alaska

Bush: 3

Arizona

Bush: 5
Gore: 3

Arkansas

Bush: 4
Gore: 2

California

Gore: 30
Bush: 22
Nader: 2

Colorado

Bush: 5
Gore: 3

Connecticut

Gore: 6
Bush: 2

Delaware

Gore: 3

DC

Gore: 3

Florida

Bush: 13
Gore: 11
Nader: 1

Georgia

Bush: 8
Gore: 5

Hawaii

Gore: 3
Bush: 1

Idaho

Bush: 3
Gore: 1

Illinois

Gore: 13
Bush: 9

Indiana

Bush: 8
Gore: 4

Iowa

Gore: 5
Bush: 2

Kansas

Bush: 4
Gore: 2

Kentucky

Bush: 5
Gore: 3

Louisiana

Bush: 6
Gore: 3

Maine

Gore: 3
Bush: 1

Maryland

Gore: 7
Bush: 3

Massachusetts

Gore: 8
Bush: 3
Nader: 1

Michigan:

Gore: 10
Bush: 8

Minnesota

Gore: 6
Bush: 4

Mississippi

Bush: 5
Gore: 2

Missouri

Bush: 7
Gore: 4

Montana

Bush: 3

Nebraska

Bush: 4
Gore: 1

Nevada

Bush: 3
Gore: 1

New Hampshire

Bush: 3
Gore: 1

New Jersey

Gore: 9
Bush: 5
Nader: 1

New Mexico

Gore: 4
Bush: 1

New York

Gore: 21
Bush: 11
Nader: 1

North Carolina

Bush: 9
Gore: 5

North Dakota

Bush: 3

Ohio

Bush: 12
Gore: 9

Oklahoma

Bush: 6
Gore: 2

Oregon

Gore: 5
Bush: 2

Pennsylvania

Gore: 13
Bush: 10

Rhode Island

Gore: 3
Bush: 1

South Carolina

Bush: 5
Gore: 3

South Dakota

Bush: 3

Tennessee

Bush: 7
Gore: 4

Texas

Bush: 20
Gore: 11
Nader: 1

Utah

Bush: 4
Gore: 1

Vermont

Gore: 3

Virginia

Bush: 8
Gore: 5

Washington

Gore: 7
Bush: 4

West Virginia

Bush: 4
Gore: 1

Wisconsin
Gore: 6
Bush: 4
Nader: 1

Wyoming

Bush: 3

Total

Bush: 272
Gore: 258
Nader: 8
Logged

Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30243
France


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2011, 05:24:23 am »
Ignore

Makes sense, though I'd add a high threshold to access proportional seats (around 15% or so) in order to avoid vote dispersion and ensure an electoral majority.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
defe07
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 666


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2011, 11:52:08 am »
Ignore

I would favor an Electoral College with small multi-member districts allocating Electors. Hopefully, districts of 3-5 EV would be the idea.

A three-EV district would elect all 3 Electors at-large; a four-EV district would elect 2 Electors at-large and 2 per district; a five-EV district would elect 2 Electors at-large and 3 per district.

For example, California has 55 EV. It could have 5 3-seat districts, 5 4-seat districts and 4 5-seat districts.
 
Logged

A proud Floridian moderate libertarian that believes in small government.
Teddy (IDS Legislator)
nickjbor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8345
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -1.91

View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2011, 03:18:01 pm »
Ignore

Still leaves the door open to gerrymandering.


Makes sense, though I'd add a high threshold to access proportional seats (around 15% or so) in order to avoid vote dispersion and ensure an electoral majority.
X / Y = Z
X = "House" Electoral Votes (436)
Y = "States" (51)
Z = 8.55 round = 9
There are thus on average, 9 proportional seats in every state.
100 / 9 = 11.11%
Thus the threshold should be 11.11%
Logged

TEDDY - ARKANSAS - IDS - Liberal Whip



Note to self: use brain more.
defe07
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 666


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2011, 03:28:47 pm »
Ignore

Here's a proposal I came up with the other day.

It would mean that the set of candidates with the most votes wins. Nothing to do with VPs. If say a set with only 1 candidate wins, that candidate wins all the EV at stake. If a set with 2 candidates wins, those candidates split the EV equally.

The following sets face each other:

For example, 1992 Presidential Elections:

Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot vs. Clinton-Bush vs. Clinton-Perot vs. Bush-Clinton vs. Bush-Perot vs. Perot-Clinton vs. Perot-Bush.
Logged

A proud Floridian moderate libertarian that believes in small government.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines