For ex. Democrats usually lose Texas and Republicans lose California but with the new revision even if one loses Texas or California the candidate will add to his or her electoral votes from that state based on what percentage of votes he or she received in that state, instead of one candidate just taking all the electrol votes for themselves.
Point is its pointless to vote in Texas for president if you are Democrat and pointless to vote Republican if you live in California since your vote is literally meaningless and a waste of time.
Should the electoral collage be revised where one candidate doesn't take all the electrol votes of one state during the presidential elections?
Constitutionally, each state gets to decide how they assign the electoral college votes that they are assigned.
What should happen is that the electoral college be rebalanced by increasing the number of house of representatives be what it should be (*) - which is in the tens of thousands. THis would mitigate the perverse effect of the senate component of the electoral college vote mattering more than it should
(*) Per the text of "The Enumeration Clause" (Clause 3) of Article I, Section 2 in the US Constitution.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.1 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
>>>> The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative <<<<
; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
========== So, if you take the population of a state, divide by 30,000, round down to the nearest integer, then that should be the number of representatives (with a minimum of 1 representative).
Let's look at the "Electoral College Vote Per Person" in two states: California and Wyoming. These are the 2020 Census populations of these two states: CA: 39,538,223 WY: 576,851 Post-2020 Census Number of Electoral College Votes (ECV): CA: 54 ECV= 52 House + 2 Senator WY: 3 ECV = 1 House + 2 Senator
So, there the persons per ECV CA: 39538223/54 CA persons/ECV = 732,189 CA persons / ECV WY: 576851/3 WY persons/ECV = 192,284 WY persons / ECV
Divide those two numbers: (732,189 CA person /ECV) / (192284 =WY person/ECV) = 3.81 CA persons / WY persons What this means is, in the Electoral College, the Electoral College Vote of 3.81 persons in California has the same impact as only one vote of a Wyoming person. Put another way, in the Electoral College, a Wyoming voter is 3.8 times more important than a California voter.
This is because CA has only 52 Representatives while Wyoming has 1 yet the population of CA is 68.54 the population of Wyoming. Compared to Wyoming, for equitability in the House, CA should have 68 Representatives.
Now, suppose the 30,000 clause of in effect. CA would have 1317 Reps. WY would have 19 Reps. In this case, the ECVs would be: CA: 1317+2 = 1319 ECV WY: 19+2 = 21 ECV Persons/ECV? CA: 39538223/1319 = 29,976 CA persons/ECV WY: 576851/21 = 27,469 WY persons/ECV 29,976/27,469 = 1.09 Those numbers are MUCH closer. Now, in the Electoral College, a Wyoming voter is 1.09 times more important than a California voter. So, they are pretty much the same. That adheres to the legal idea of "1 person, 1 vote" which is throughout the USA... except in the Electoral College because that's what the Constitution says.
Bottom line: The Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the House of Representatives at 438 needs to be overturned with the US returning to the original Constitutional text.
The Constitution doesn't specify how each state allocates electors. That's left up to each state. What you're suggesting is already done in some states: Maine and Nebraska, where there one elector for each congressional district.
A few states are thinking of allocating all their electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. I'm not in favor of that because it potentially makes a person's vote in a state meaningless.
The Electoral College was created to provide a form of balance between large states and small states so that large states alone don't determine the President. Some people want it abolished, which would be a bad idea. If that were to happen, a candidate could be elected President by winning the popular vote in California and New York City by a large margin while the loser candidate wins the popular vote by a narrow margin in the rest of the country... would that be fair?
That can already happen, states get to decide how they allocate their Electoral votes.
If California thought the popular vote was so important they could change their laws and say, it gets divided out by popular vote, so like 70% (I have no clue what their actual break down is) goes blue, 25% goes red and 5% goes third party. Then allocate them accordingly.
May have to do some rounding on partial votes, up or down or find a better method.
Two states already have a method of this, this is why I say if liberals are so concerned with the popular vote they can lead by example.
No constitutional amendment is even required to do this, can be done today right now before the next election.
The electoral college isn't perfect but it usually let's us have a president elect overnight instead of taking weeks or months to count and recount and litigate votes.
It sounds like a reasonable compromise between holding onto it and abolishing it entirely; just divide the electoral votes by the percent of the popular vote the candidate gets. Also make that official- as it stands in federal law, the electors are under no obligation to vote the way the public does.
I would have normally said yes, but since recently they started allowing illegals to vote in some states, the electoral college needs to stay how it is. If every single vote had to be done in person, recorded on camera and verified then I would be fine with changes.
Yeah democracy is such a great form of government. Maybe the people themselves can vote on legislation while they are eating potato chips on the couch? True democracy at work.
Our founders didn’t believe in democracy — and anyone with a brain wouldn’t either
Right, people "with a brain" chose to base the choice of leadership in a country with a population of 330 million on the opinions... of a bunch of tiny ass hillbilly states instead of the states that actually matter, both economically and culturally.
The Collage should not be touched it was ok for the democrats to use to win elections in the 40s and50 s and 60s. If you got rid of it now it would only take a few of the larger Democratic states to win an election like N. Y, , CA, and the other strongholds of the Dims. The rest of the states combined do not have the people to win plus if illegals get the vote like the THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA wants with illegals they have a lock on the elections. VIVA BIDEN!
No, that would eliminate the purpose of the electoral college. The electoral college empowers the states, especially those without mega-metropolis cities. I don't want to bow down to how big city folk believe we should live. I don't want anything to do with those people.
The US voting system needs revision. Gerrymandering, the electoral college, the point you made about having basically 2/3 ‘s of the population unrepresented when only one part can take the W.
States can set the rules on winner take all electoral college voting but few states want to do that. So far, it’s only Maine and Nebraska that have partially split their voting.
And other countries have had popular vote and no civil war has happened because. Your point is invalid and you are assuming all Mexico civil wars were because of popular vote.
Yes it be revised the last election was rigged We had China , Russia , Canada , France , even the Talib an Sending in millions of votes that was counted , the voting machines was changing the names on the voting sheets
I get your point... But still, the states elect, that means the president. The states elect means that each state votes as one.
Maybe it should be difference, but that was chosen for a reason. (mostly to preserve the union, but other reasons as well. You know how virginia wouldn't have joined if slavery wasn't allowed? Well, maine was one of the states that came with slavery not allowed. Without the electoral college it wouldn't have joined.)
There are 50 states. Only about 7 or 8 are purple states. Every citizen vote should matter and its not fair to the citizens and the candidates who have support in those states to receive nothing of the electrol votes though they had millions or hundreds of thousands of people vote for them in that state.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Should the electoral collage be revised where one candidate doesn't take all the electrol votes of one state during the presidential elections?
