Electoral College reform proposal

[MassTerp94]

Obviously this couldn't be determined at the federal level as states control elections, but here's my idea for reforming the Electoral College:

Each state gives ONE electoral vote to the national popular vote winner. The remaining electoral votes are decided in the same way they are now. This would give the popular vote winner a 50 vote advantage, and one which would be difficult but not impossible for the other candidate to overcome.  It would encourage more competition in the smaller states as the disadvantaged candidate would need to rack up as many states as possible, both large and small. At the same time, it would require the candidate with the advantage to pay attention to these states as well so as to keep his/her advantage.

I cannot support total abolition of the EC as candidates would only pay attention to CA, NY, TX and IL.

[FairBol]

I couldn't support this.  Why "throw out the baby with the bath water"?

Oh, and in other news, CT has just joined the "National Popular Vote Compact".  The downward spiral continues, LOL.  

https://youtu.be/w7NeRiNefO0?t=21s

[catographer]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

[Yellowhammer]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

America is not, nor ever has been, a democracy.

[Lachi]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

America is not, nor ever has been, a democracy.

The US is a republic with a representative democracy

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Instead of going to House in tie,  or a discrepancy between popular vote and EC vote, 2000 and 2016, have a runoff

[Karpatsky]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

America is not, nor ever has been, a democracy.

A representative democracy is still a democracy.

Besides, this objection is meaningless because the argument being made is normative, not positive. Saying 'the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy' in response is an attempt to shut down discussion, not engage with it in a meaningful way.

As for this proposal, it is only marginally better than the existing system, and if there was enough will to make such an amendment it would be better to actually implement a modern voting system on the whole.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The ideal reform probably is simply creating a pool of 100 EVs awarded to the PV winner, which is similar to this proposal.

[MarkD]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

America is not, nor ever has been, a democracy.

I often feel as though we're a judicial oligarchy instead of a republic or a representative democracy, with the Supreme Court behaving like a set of supreme dictators.

[Skill and Chance]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

America is not, nor ever has been, a democracy.

I often feel as though we're a judicial oligarchy instead of a republic or a representative democracy, with the Supreme Court behaving like a set of supreme dictators.

Do you think it would be an improvement if the norm was packing SCOTUS upon taking office whenever control of the federal government flipped?  On the one hand, it could make government more explicitly responsive to the will of the people.  On the other hand, it could lead to a near dictatorial presidency pretty quickly.

[MarkD]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

America is not, nor ever has been, a democracy.

I often feel as though we're a judicial oligarchy instead of a republic or a representative democracy, with the Supreme Court behaving like a set of supreme dictators.

Do you think it would be an improvement if the norm was packing SCOTUS upon taking office whenever control of the federal government flipped?  On the one hand, it could make government more explicitly responsive to the will of the people.  On the other hand, it could lead to a near dictatorial presidency pretty quickly.

If the President packs the SCOTUS with ideologues, no, that would not be an improvement. If you're going to pack the SCOTUS, pack it with the most objective interpreters of law.

[Flyersfan232]

maine system.

[Chips]

I prefer to simply leave the electoral college as is.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

maine system.

That's a fantastic way for the consequences of gerrymandering to permeate into presidential elections.

If every state adopted fair/independent redistricting practices, I suppose it could be an improvement over the current electoral college, albeit a somewhat negligible one that wouldn't address how voters in large states are disempowered.

[GeorgeBFree]

I think making the Maine/Nebraska model the national standard is still best idea. It will still give more power to smaller states, but it would make more votes count as there are a lot more swing districts in a given election (especially with active campaigning) than swing states. It would make election more national in nature too as swing districts turn over more frequently.

[Damocles]

I think making the Maine/Nebraska model the national standard is still best idea. It will still give more power to smaller states, but it would make more votes count as there are a lot more swing districts in a given election (especially with active campaigning) than swing states. It would make election more national in nature too as swing districts turn over more frequently.

Some would also argue against this, given that it would institutionalize gerrymandering and make its effects carry over to the presidential election.

[MillennialModerate]

I’m not sure but I think a tie should go to the popular vote winner.

If no one reaches 270 it should be a straight combined vote of the Senate and House (535)

[Hope For A New Era]

If you insist upon doing obnoxious reforms instead of just abolishing it like any sensible country would, the best solution is proportional allocation of electoral votes, without regard to winners of congressional districts.

So Missouri has 10 electoral votes. Trump got 57% of the vote, Biden got 41%. Missouri should send 6 Trump electors and 4 Biden electors.

But seriously, just get rid of it.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

If you believe that all votes matter, all voters are equal, and our country's leadership should be elected by the people, a national popular vote is the only way. Any system that allows the possibility of a "loser" to win defeats the goal of a democracy, which is to elect those who best represent the people's wishes.

America is not, nor ever has been, a democracy.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=294214