One State=One Vote

[rockhound]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

[I left.]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

[Erc]

Interestingly enough, the only elections in the last century where this would have made a difference would be 1976 and 1960, buth very close elections (with no clear PV winner in the latter).

[Χahar]

Oh my god no.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I will say one thing about this. It would make big states irrelevant. Given the choice between playing in Florida & playing in New Mexico, where would you spend money? New Mexico obviously.

[HardRCafé]

I wondered how long it would take for this to become the counterargument to the popular vote.  About time.

[Judäischen Volksfront]

Why not become like the People's Republic of China and stack the Congress with unelected handpicked cronies instead?

It would save a whole lot of tax money not having to hold an election every four years.

[phk]

Oh my god no.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.

[Senator Ben]

Oh my god no.

[Χahar]

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.

As long as Alberta gets left out.

[Hashemite]

Clearly it should just be based upon land area. We should admit Canada as the 51st state and let them decide all of our elections for us.

As long as Alberta gets left out.

Give Steve his own country.

He could establish his dictatorship there.

[muon2]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

If the concern was that the large states had too much power by winner-takes-all and the small states that have disproportionate electoral weight, then you are really arguing for a more balanced population between states. Presumably that would be to help mid-size states. If that was the goal, the Constitution would have provided for representation penalties for states that were too small to encourage merger, and for those states too large to encourage splits.

[Erc]

Generally, since the 23rd Amendment, such a condition would require the Democrat to win around 51.5% of the two-way vote in order to win a majority of the states [ranging from a low of 50.2% in 1976 to a high of 52.1% in 2000, ignoring 1968].  A nice bias to the Republicans, though not massive.  (Though, if it were in place, it would all but guarantee a McCain victory this year).

"Tipping Point" states for a 26-state majority:

2004:
Florida.  Kerry would have needed 51.3% of the two-way vote to win here (he won 48.6%).

2000:
Nevada.  Gore needed 52.1% nationwide (he won 50.3%)

1996:
Ohio.  Clinton needed 51.1% nationwide (he won 54.7%)

1992:
Tennessee.  Clinton needed 50.9% nationwide (he won 53.5%)

1988:
Maine.  Dukakis needed 51.9% (he won 46.1%)

1984:
Connecticut.  Mondale needed 51.8% (he won 40.8%)

1980:
Oregon.  Carter needed 50.2% (he won 44.7%)

1976:
Maine.  Carter needed 51.4% (he won 51.1%)--barely losing the count here, Maine and Oregon making the difference here.

1972:
Vermont.  McGovern needed 51.4% (he won 38.2%).

1968:
Complicated, due to Wallace...
To Prevent a Nixon Majority:
Wisconsin.  Humphrey needed 51.6% of the two-way vote nationwide to win here, but only won 49.6%.

To Win an outright Majority:
Nevada.  Humphrey needed 54.3% (he only won 49.6%).

1964:
Delaware.  Johnson needed 50.2% of the two-way vote nationwide (he won 61.3%).

[Χahar]

Interesting analysis.

[Erc]

Compare that to the Electoral College "Tipping Points" (for the past 20 years):

2004:
Ohio: Kerry needed 49.81% of the two-way vote nationwide to win here (he won 48.76%).

2000:
Florida: Gore needed 50.273% nationwide (he won 50.268%).

1996:
Pennsylvania: Clinton needed 49.57% of the two-way vote (he won 54.74%).

1992
Colorado: Clinton needed 50.65% of the two-way vote (he won 53.45%).

1988
Michigan: Dukakis needed 50.08% of the two-way vote (he won 46.10%)

[rockhound]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

[I left.]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

[rockhound]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.

[I left.]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.

You're going around in circles here. Of course the electoral college is what the constitution dictates. The popular vote is irrelevant, constitutionally speaking.

This is a 2-way street. If you'd like to change the constitution to give each state equal power in the electoral college, then surely I can make an argument to completely eliminate the Electoral College entirely.

Not that I'm sure I want to do that, but at the very least, I support fair allocation of the electors based on the population of the states.

[Χahar]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.

I believe that federalism stopped mattering when we started admitting rectangular states. Some of the Western states were designed as additional Republican EVs.

[So the Heroes Fall]

States are completely arbitrary creations.

[HardRCafé]

So are countries.

[So the Heroes Fall]

So are countries.

Some are (Iraq). Most aren't.

[J. J.]

So are countries.

Some are (Iraq). Most aren't.

Most are, in some part.