Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 04:30:14 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Electoral Reform
| | | |-+  Electoral system change
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Which way of electing the President would you support?
Nationwide popular vote   -19 (51.4%)
indirectly by Reps + Senators   -1 (2.7%)
Electoral college only   -9 (24.3%)
electoral college of reps, senators, state legislators   -0 (0%)
Popular vote+proportional EV   -8 (21.6%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 37

Author Topic: Electoral system change  (Read 7343 times)
PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31477
South Africa


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -7.30

P P P

View Profile WWW
« on: July 08, 2007, 01:45:06 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6066


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2007, 07:21:00 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2007, 09:37:13 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28449
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2007, 12:48:11 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
Harry Hayfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1806
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2007, 11:42:02 am »
Ignore

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)
Logged

Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11399
Ireland, Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2007, 08:36:01 pm »
Ignore

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)

That system immediatly runs into problems once you hit states with a very small number of Electoral votes.. Especially states with just 3.
Logged



Quote
Keith R Laws ‏@Keith_Laws  Feb 4
As I have noted before 'paradigm shift' is an anagram of 'grasp dim faith'
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13619
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2007, 04:56:47 pm »
Ignore

Option 5.
Logged

Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9936
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2007, 03:16:38 pm »
Ignore

Other: A parliementary system plus proportional representation
Logged

The general's hand slipped, and pressed the launch all missiles button by accident.
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2007, 05:14:02 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38877
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2007, 07:43:12 pm »
Ignore

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)
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28449
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2007, 10:02:52 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2007, 12:14:06 am »
Ignore

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 if they all leave together?
Logged

Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38877
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2007, 04:20:05 pm »
Ignore

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 if they all leave together?

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. Smiley? Sad? Your choice.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines