Opinion of Electoral Vote Allocation by Congressional District
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:44:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Opinion of Electoral Vote Allocation by Congressional District
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: What is your opinion of the system that allocates electoral votes by congressional districts?
#1
Freedom System
 
#2
Horrible System
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 129

Author Topic: Opinion of Electoral Vote Allocation by Congressional District  (Read 11194 times)
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 21, 2016, 09:20:36 PM »

Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that do not have a winner-take-all electoral vote allocation method. Instead, each congressional district gives an electoral vote to its winner and the two leftover electoral votes are given to the statewide winner. The only time that one of these states actually did split its electoral votes was in 2008 when Obama won NE-2 while losing the rest of the state.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2016, 11:58:24 PM »

Horrible system, obviously. If big states started doing it, then the presidency would be determined by who could do the best gerrymander.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2016, 07:38:55 AM »

If it coupled with neutral redistricting reform, then I think it has value. People in states dominated by the other party but in large homogeneous regions (upstate NY, eastern WA, black areas of the Atlanta metro, Rio Grande valley of TX) would feel like their vote mattered more. In gerrymandered states it just becomes another point of abuse.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2016, 08:22:50 AM »

Horrible The EC should be absolished.
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2016, 08:32:46 AM »

Horrible The EC should be absolished.

I agree that this system is bad, but here's why the EC should remain

A) If there were no Electoral College, all campaigning would be blanket ads, and then it would be a battle of who had more money. With the Electoral College, candidates pick battlegrounds and actually meet voters, meaning they can win by being a better candidate/person, and don't just have to be the richest. Candidates also have to spend less time fundraising.

B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss

C) Sure, ties are chaotic, and that's why my above plan should exist.

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2016, 08:47:56 AM »

Horrible The EC should be absolished.

I agree that this system is bad, but here's why the EC should remain

A) If there were no Electoral College, all campaigning would be blanket ads, and then it would be a battle of who had more money. With the Electoral College, candidates pick battlegrounds and actually meet voters, meaning they can win by being a better candidate/person, and don't just have to be the richest. Candidates also have to spend less time fundraising.

B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss

C) Sure, ties are chaotic, and that's why my above plan should exist.

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?

Well, the point I make is this: Just pick to two most populous states: CA and TX. No sane candidate campaigns in these two states, because they're safe D/R. Actually very unfair.

An option to prevent a popular vote loser from winning an EC majority (like in 2000) would be at-large electoral votes. Let's say you have a number of electoral votes that are awarded to the national popular vote winner.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2016, 09:12:42 AM »

Bad system. Even if we were able to curb gerrymandering, there's still the natural gerrymander of urban clustering which would bias the system inherently. I don't really see any good reason we shouldn't base it on the national popular vote, despite all the concern trolling about how that would just mean candidates would have to campaign to places where, you know, the most people live.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2016, 11:51:22 PM »

Horrible system, would make gerrymandering more effective and make it possible to win the Presidency from a greater popular vote deficit. The EC should be shifted to a proportional-by-state or Australian-Senate style system.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2016, 01:57:52 AM »

It is equivalent to how district-based parliamentary systems (such as Canada, UK, and Australia) choose their PM.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2016, 06:24:48 AM »

It's not really, though. Not precisely.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2016, 10:26:03 AM »

This would allow presidential gerrymanders. Beyond awful.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2016, 05:53:29 PM »

It is equivalent to how district-based parliamentary systems (such as Canada, UK, and Australia) choose their PM.

Um, no.
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2016, 06:03:22 PM »

This would allow presidential gerrymanders. Beyond awful.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2016, 06:29:53 PM »

With the current gerrymandered map, it would be worse than the EC.
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2016, 03:02:52 PM »

Horrible The EC should be absolished.
Should the U.S. Senate also be abolished, though?
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2016, 03:07:02 PM »

B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss
To be fair, though, someone (such as Bush in 2000) who was a popular vote loser under our current system might not have been a popular vote loser under a popular vote-based system due to the fact that a popular vote-based system might have caused Presidential candidates to conduct different campaigns, have different campaign themes and messages, et cetera. Indeed, here is a good FiveThirtyEight.com article about this Smiley:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/would-al-gore-have-won-in-2000-without-the-electoral-college/

Also, though, what about if the popular vote is an exact tie? Wink

In addition to this, though, if the Electoral College should go (which is the argument that some people are making), then why exactly shouldn't the U.S. Senate go as well? After all, both the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate favor smaller U.S. states (to some extent).
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2016, 08:03:24 PM »

Horrible The EC should be absolished.
Should the U.S. Senate also be abolished, though?

Yes.
Logged
Californiadreaming
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 678
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2016, 08:21:35 PM »

I appreciate your consistency. Smiley I really do. Smiley
Logged
Lachi
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2016, 01:16:06 AM »
« Edited: August 02, 2016, 01:18:20 AM by lok1999 »

Abolish the EC entirely, and use a parliamentary system with full preferential voting.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2016, 05:54:33 PM »

If it coupled with neutral redistricting reform, then I think it has value. People in states dominated by the other party but in large homogeneous regions (upstate NY, eastern WA, black areas of the Atlanta metro, Rio Grande valley of TX) would feel like their vote mattered more. In gerrymandered states it just becomes another point of abuse.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2016, 10:07:14 PM »

If it coupled with neutral redistricting reform, then I think it has value. People in states dominated by the other party but in large homogeneous regions (upstate NY, eastern WA, black areas of the Atlanta metro, Rio Grande valley of TX) would feel like their vote mattered more. In gerrymandered states it just becomes another point of abuse.

Even then, Republicans would gain an edge due to their populations being less concentrated.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2016, 10:42:11 PM »

If it coupled with neutral redistricting reform, then I think it has value. People in states dominated by the other party but in large homogeneous regions (upstate NY, eastern WA, black areas of the Atlanta metro, Rio Grande valley of TX) would feel like their vote mattered more. In gerrymandered states it just becomes another point of abuse.

Even then, Republicans would gain an edge due to their populations being less concentrated.

That may be true in today's political environment. But we should be focused on the long-term best policies for fair districts. Th relative concentrations of the parties shift as the parties realign with different voting blocs. Today the urban-rural divide is dominant, but it wasn't always so, and won't be always so. Our biggest impediment to neutral reform are party hacks who look at races primarily through the lens of the next election.
Logged
crazy jimmie
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,513


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2016, 02:59:38 PM »

If it coupled with neutral redistricting reform, then I think it has value. People in states dominated by the other party but in large homogeneous regions (upstate NY, eastern WA, black areas of the Atlanta metro, Rio Grande valley of TX) would feel like their vote mattered more. In gerrymandered states it just becomes another point of abuse.

Even then, Republicans would gain an edge due to their populations being less concentrated.

That may be true in today's political environment. But we should be focused on the long-term best policies for fair districts. Th relative concentrations of the parties shift as the parties realign with different voting blocs. Today the urban-rural divide is dominant, but it wasn't always so, and won't be always so. Our biggest impediment to neutral reform are party hacks who look at races primarily through the lens of the next election.

Exactly!

My position is that I support direct popular vote for President. The only advantage I see to the electoral college in modern times is that in a close election, you would only have to recount one state.

Imagine if in 2000, we had to do a nation wide recount for President. We only had to do it for Florida.

Atlas, people in general, have a tendency to predict future elections based on the most previous election. I do agree with you that the urban-rural divide will not always exist. I remember in 2006 when everyone assumed 2008, 2012, and 2016 would mirror 2004. It was similar, but it did not exactly mirror it. No one in 2000 expected Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia to be more likely to vote Democratic then Missouri, Arkansas and Tennessee in 2016, for example.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2016, 06:08:49 PM »

Proportional allocation would make sense if it was done based on vote received statewide, but not based on congressional district.

Should the U.S. Senate also be abolished, though?

Yes.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2016, 11:37:29 AM »

B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss
To be fair, though, someone (such as Bush in 2000) who was a popular vote loser under our current system might not have been a popular vote loser under a popular vote-based system due to the fact that a popular vote-based system might have caused Presidential candidates to conduct different campaigns, have different campaign themes and messages, et cetera. Indeed, here is a good FiveThirtyEight.com article about this Smiley:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/would-al-gore-have-won-in-2000-without-the-electoral-college/

Also, though, what about if the popular vote is an exact tie? Wink

In addition to this, though, if the Electoral College should go (which is the argument that some people are making), then why exactly shouldn't the U.S. Senate go as well? After all, both the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate favor smaller U.S. states (to some extent).

That article explains perfectly why the popular vote would be a preferable system to the Electoral College. Candidates would focus on campaigning and advertising across the entire country, instead of just in swing states. The vast majority of America is currently ignored in Presidential campaigns, and the incentive to tailor policy positions to swing states would be removed.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 14 queries.