Eliminate electoral college in presidential elections?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry...media/File:Redistricting_Methods_by_State.svg
Go Iowa - a nonpartisan commission proposes lines.
Green means attempts to not gerrymander
Gray means there is only one representative, so bfd.

The yellow states allow the dominant party to draw the lines.

 

Just keep it like it is.

It is a good system.

 

Well they do, but imperfectly. Democrats arrange their districts so that their incumbents are so over protected that they really stand no chance of being defeated.

Republicans put each incumbent at greater risk but the trade off is more seats. And that's the tradeoff, you want safer seats or more of them?

Nonsense. The Dems captured 45.5% of the vote and carried 43.2% of the seats. So you are quibbling over a few percentage points.

Is it because you were screwed? Why no.

Look no further than New York for the most heavily gerrymandered Democrat Seats in Congress and Democrats control the re-districting process in New York and have for many many moons (little Indian Lingo there for you).

New York 15th votes Dem +43, that is insanely Gerrymandered. José E. Serrano
New York 14th is Dem +42, Charlie Rangal
NY 5th, Dem +35, Gregory Meeks
NY 8th, Dem +35, Hakeem Jeffries

PA 2nd, and long time Democrat State, Dem +38, Chaka Fattah - Indicted

CA 13th Dem +37, Barbara Lee
CA 12th Dem +34, Nancy Pelosi
CA 37th Dem +34, Karen Bass

IL 7th, Dem +36, Danny Davis

The vast majority of the power that redistricts is with the State legislature. In many cases the Gov signs off on it, but by no means in all. You want a better distribution of votes, then some of these entrenched incumbents might have to have more competitive races, good luck getting Nancy Pelosi or Charlie Rangel to go along with that.

Only 3 GOP districts are +30 R.
Dems have 2 that are + 40 D and 17 that are +30 D and the vast majority are in States that have had Dem control of redistricting for generations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_partisan_voting_index

It's more representative than winner take all where I can tell you before the candidates are even selected to run how 80% of the States will vote in the general election.

Is it perfect? Of course not, would it greatly increased participation, or better yet even allow participation by vast millions of Americans who currently have zero say in the outcome of Presidential Elections? You betcha!

 

This is a mish mash of exactly what I said.

But, no, a close race doesn't mean equal representation, obviously.

And, remember that this has to do with districts, and thus it affects the make-up of the House. It's not just the presidency.

 

Yes! and the sooner the better.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

The Electoral College is a flat out robbery.

 

With the electoral system, it is only necessary to steal votes in one state to win the entire election. On a national election, it would be necessary to steal the entire country.

This is NOT a minor matter. W Bush was president for 8 years even though Al Gore received more votes. While I despise Al Gore, he should have become president because he got more votes. Given the extreme issue stances between W. Bush and Al Gore, the effect of the vote loser becoming president has MASSIVE effect. The Iraq war most notable. But the list is massive.

And, again, it means the majority of voters and states are ignored in campaigning, most voters have no reason to even involve, and some states have massive more pull in DC than other states.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm surprised that you were an W Bush supporter.

 

Obviously, I wasn't a fan of GW.

But, any person that is even slightly to the "Left" of the political spectrum (i.e., a person more likely to vote Democratic for reasons of the Supreme Court) has to LOVE the built in demographic advantage that the EC gives the Democratic candidate in the POTUS election.

 

They do have a voice. It's just not as loud as the voices of 20 million. Nor should it be.

 

This makes no sense. California has a population of almost 40 million people. Kansas has a population of 3 million people. California has 55 electoral votes, Kansas has 6. Of COURSE California is going to have a louder voice, electoral votes or not.

 

Whites don't vote as a single bloc.

 

Big numbers overcome some of the bias, because the electors for the senators get averaged out.

Consider Kansas v Wyoming.

Kansas has 6 times the population, but only 2 times the electors.

 

Neither do minorities

 

I dont see how the EC helps small states.

maybe someone could explain this

 

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

John Adams​

Direct election of Senators (17th amendment) was a disastrous mistake. Direct election of the President will be equally disastrous.

 

I'd like to see this, too, as I don't see it helping anyone, really. It's representative of population.

 

Yeah, more people live in cities/larger states. Why should Alabama have an equal say as Texas?

 

I feel much better represented by my House member than my Senators.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't. Alabama has 9 electoral votes. Texas has 38 electoral votes.

 

So we don't need the insane electoral college, right?

 

Actually, we do--for those cases when the popular vote is close. Normally, though, the EC and the PV are the same.

 

Well we should go strictly popular. It's best not to take a chance that the popular candidate is undone by the EC, which is undemocratic.

 

The whole issue and the reason that the electoral college was set up in the first place is practicality. This would be direct democracy. Which is hard to maintain. Could you imagine if Clinton beat Trump by only several thousand votes? He would throw a temper tantrum and demand a recount. And rightly so (not to support Trump in any way ). There exists an abundance of error in direct democracy. At least with the electoral college that error is eliminated by the votes being for people who will vote for the president.

Now, is this a bad system. Yes. I'm not championing the electoral college. I'm just saying direct democracy is still impractical even in our modern society. I think that we should abolish the dumb winner take all system because that is the dumb part. Basically, what we have now is that, even if a state is 40% Republican, the 60% that is Democrat gets all the votes. But it should be 60% of the votes go Democrat and 40% go Republican. This makes every state a swing state, making more people active in the picking of the president, but still keeps the election fair enough that, even with such a huge margin of error, you can still be certain the election is accurate.

 

Instead of by state, why not by Congressional District or County/Parish calculating population ratios? Certainly would narrow down the challenge of a recount and prevent an entire state and then the presidency being stolen by 1000 fraudulent votes in one precinct by one precinct worker.

 

Which is why I want the EC abolished. No one should be able to win with a minority or a segment of voters. The Electoral College is a fraud, a massive fraud on our system.
And for those who would argue that it protects us from bad choices. See: 2016.

No, it doesn't. No it doesn't. It favors the candidate of today's Northeastern bloc. The North East has a disproportional effect on our elections and thus choosing the presidency they want. 1/4th of the country shouldn't rule over 3/4ths. It's like England telling Scotland FU. Same thing here.

 

The W. Bush v Gore election proved the SERIOUS flaws of the electoral college. No one did democracy LOSE, but the recount was virtually impossible as it would have to be statewide. The effect of Bush, not Gore, being president was MASSIVE, particularly in foreign policy and war.