An Implausible New Electoral Process?

This is more or less a poll question. A simple one.

Could America pull off the Nebraska Method?

Rework the electoral college to one elector per congressional district.

Could we do it without going way overboard with the gerrymandering already happening?


I will use my own county in California. We have 5 congressional districts, 48 through 52.

48 - Rural least densely populated. Notable for Santee (aka: Klantee) and Poway. The most white supremacist and Jewish areas respectively. Large Native American population. All Indian Gaming Casinos here. They all agree on Trump.

49 - Del Mar, Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and Camp Pendleton. This is a toss-up district.

50 - This one is mostly democrat, and mostly gerrymandered to encompass wealth. It includes Coastal San Diego, Downtown, UCSD, University City, La Jolla, Carmel Valley, Rancho Santa Fe, Rancho Bernardo, and San Marcos.

51 - The most Asian district. Large Chinese, Korean, Muslim, Chaldean, and Hindu populations. Includes North Central San Diego, MCAS Miramar, La Mesa, El Cajon, and Spring Valley. Blue all the way.

52 - El inglés es opcional en este distrito. La mayor parte del sur de San Diego, incluidos todos los vecindarios LGBT. El distrito más diverso y menos blanco. Incluye Chula Vista, National City y Border.

This district is deep blue, despite significant gains made by the republican party.

Still 4-1 or even 3-2 for the county. Every district drawn to be unique in some way. Also more representative.

End result in California becomes a more representative electoral vote. Not 52-0, but 40-12.

Who wouldn't want to assume 12 Republican Electoral votes out of California? Or all the democrat districts out of Texas in reverse?

I'm sure district 48, and it's ironically diverse Republican leaning demographic, would appreciate their vote going Trump's way. Issa is as entrenched in the district, as Pelosi in San Francisco.

* Self moderated for irrelevance *

a reply to: Degradation33

I think that America's electoral issues are more to do with the limitation on the size of the EC. It seems ridiculous that the votes of a country of 330 million people can be usurped by the votes of just 270 people.

a reply to: chr0naut

I think the problem has more to do with the left and the MSN.

They always refer to the US as a democracy...we aren't. We are a republic.

And you want to talk about usurping the will of the people, how do you feel that there are states that have signed laws saying they will give their electors to whomever wins the popular vote in the state, and not follow the constitution and the voting of of the districts.

NY is one. So it doesn't matter who I vote for, NYC will be electing for the rest of the state.


ETA: The dems are pushing so many people away, they know NY is in play....this is the only way to ensure Biden wins.

Every social security number should have 1 vote, electronically, with verification. one vote per SS number.
This is 2024, we have horseless buggies and the internet and etc.
We don't need electors anymore.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

I think that America's electoral issues are more to do with the limitation on the size of the EC. It seems ridiculous that the votes of a country of 330 million people can be usurped by the votes of just 270 people.

How to say you don't understand the Electoral College without saying that you don't understand the Electoral College.

The Founders NEVER wanted a direct Democracy in America... they understood the ramifications of it because they knew history.

A little background...

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Bolding mine... an Electoral College ensures that the urban and rural population are more equally represented and also gives a more equitable decision of President between States.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

Even when they had to "tweak" the system a bit with the 12th Amendment, the possibility of electing a President by popular vote was never considered.

Possibly because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.

Linky

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: chr0naut

I think the problem has more to do with the left and the MSN.

They always refer to the US as a democracy...we aren't. We are a republic.

Here's a list of republics (there's hundreds of them):

List of republics

Most republics are also democracies - it's a very usual thing.

In fact North Korea is, at the same time, a democracy, a republic, and under a dynastic totalitarian dictatorship. And that has been particularly bad for its citizens.

But enough of them 'other' republics.

The US Constitution mandates the use of elections to determine the will of the people over directing who sits in government. It is, at its core, a democracy.

In fact, the USA is a republic, a federation of states, a trias politica, a three level hierarchy, and a democracy, all at the same time! Being one does not preclude the others.

And you want to talk about usurping the will of the people, how do you feel that there are states that have signed laws saying they will give their electors to whomever wins the popular vote in the state, and not follow the constitution and the voting of of the districts.

NY is one. So it doesn't matter who I vote for, NYC will be electing for the rest of the state.

ETA: The dems are pushing so many people away, they know NY is in play....this is the only way to ensure Biden wins.

I really have little 'skin in the game' of US politics. But political decisions in the USA do reflect internationally, especially with trade, alliances, and economic links, being what they are.

And the USA is militarily powerful and historically belligerent. Probably the most disruptive challenger to world peace in the 19th and 20th centuries. I can't see that changing in the short term, either. Sort of like a child with a fully fuelled and primed flame-thrower.

I wish the best for the USA's political future, but I can't see it happening while ever there is no will to achieve consensus, or to give concession in compromise.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

I think that America's electoral issues are more to do with the limitation on the size of the EC. It seems ridiculous that the votes of a country of 330 million people can be usurped by the votes of just 270 people.

How to say you don't understand the Electoral College without saying that you don't understand the Electoral College.

The Founders NEVER wanted a direct Democracy in America... they understood the ramifications of it because they knew history.

A little background...

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Bolding mine... an Electoral College ensures that the urban and rural population are more equally represented and also gives a more equitable decision of President between States.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

Even when they had to "tweak" the system a bit with the 12th Amendment, the possibility of electing a President by popular vote was never considered.

Possibly because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.

Linky

The Constitutional convention was back in the late 1700's, but the USA is no longer a frontier 'once was colony'.

Its threats to the common good are primarily technological and manufacturing/economic resource management, and its population is vast beyond the conception of the founding fathers.

To tie the administration to 200+ year old legislature is to stagnate until things break. This is relevant to the electoral process, too.

A majority of 270 EC electors, who can easily be faithless, and can also easily be bribed for more than any penalties they are likely to get, are a hole in the modern application of a centuries old process.

The penalties for voting faithlessly need to be much greater to reflect the size of the electoral economies, and/or, the number of EC electors needs to rise proportionally to the voting population size. Either of which would ameliorate the potential corruption that is probably already occurring in the process (remember that there have been numerous presidents that won the popular race, only to loose in the EC vote - a warning flag!).

It is a fairly simple math problem to solve.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

I think that America's electoral issues are more to do with the limitation on the size of the EC. It seems ridiculous that the votes of a country of 330 million people can be usurped by the votes of just 270 people.

There's never been an election where the 270 electors voted against the votes of the citizens to elect a president.

And, it's bad enough The States and Locals elections are mob rule. 💥

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

I think that America's electoral issues are more to do with the limitation on the size of the EC. It seems ridiculous that the votes of a country of 330 million people can be usurped by the votes of just 270 people.

There's never been an election where the 270 electors voted against the votes of the citizens to elect a president.

And, it's bad enough The States and Locals elections are mob rule. 💥

You only have to 'turn' two or three voters to win, over even a popular opponent. Because there are already voters on both sides.

The system is very open to corruption.

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election

Also, where is this unruly mob involved in this 'mob rule'? There isn't one. It's just an inflammatory term used by a stupid bigot, and echoed by the similarly clueless, to try and cast shade on the legal process.

a reply to: chr0naut

shore thang 😀

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

I think that America's electoral issues are more to do with the limitation on the size of the EC. It seems ridiculous that the votes of a country of 330 million people can be usurped by the votes of just 270 people.

How to say you don't understand the Electoral College without saying that you don't understand the Electoral College.

The Founders NEVER wanted a direct Democracy in America... they understood the ramifications of it because they knew history.

A little background...

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Bolding mine... an Electoral College ensures that the urban and rural population are more equally represented and also gives a more equitable decision of President between States.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

Even when they had to "tweak" the system a bit with the 12th Amendment, the possibility of electing a President by popular vote was never considered.

Possibly because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.

Linky

The Constitutional convention was back in the late 1700's, but the USA is no longer a frontier 'once was colony'.

Its threats to the common good are primarily technological and manufacturing/economic resource management, and its population is vast beyond the conception of the founding fathers.

To tie the administration to 200+ year old legislature is to stagnate until things break. This is relevant to the electoral process, too.

A majority of 270 EC electors, who can easily be faithless, and can also easily be bribed for more than any penalties they are likely to get, are a hole in the modern application of a centuries old process.

The penalties for voting faithlessly need to be much greater to reflect the size of the electoral economies, and/or, the number of EC electors needs to rise proportionally to the voting population size. Either of which would ameliorate the potential corruption that is probably already occurring in the process (remember that there have been numerous presidents that won the popular race, only to loose in the EC vote - a warning flag!).

It is a fairly simple math problem to solve.

You are, as always, thinking as a Progressive.

Which hasn't changed the entire time you have been posting here.

You have not evolved intellectually.

At the end of the day you are still pushing the same tired ideas that the Founders rejected.

The nice part about that is that you will in no way, shape or form ever change one iota of what American politics are.

But keep spending your time trying, puddin.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

I think that America's electoral issues are more to do with the limitation on the size of the EC. It seems ridiculous that the votes of a country of 330 million people can be usurped by the votes of just 270 people.

How to say you don't understand the Electoral College without saying that you don't understand the Electoral College.

The Founders NEVER wanted a direct Democracy in America... they understood the ramifications of it because they knew history.

A little background...

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Bolding mine... an Electoral College ensures that the urban and rural population are more equally represented and also gives a more equitable decision of President between States.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

Even when they had to "tweak" the system a bit with the 12th Amendment, the possibility of electing a President by popular vote was never considered.

Possibly because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.

Linky

The Constitutional convention was back in the late 1700's, but the USA is no longer a frontier 'once was colony'.

Its threats to the common good are primarily technological and manufacturing/economic resource management, and its population is vast beyond the conception of the founding fathers.

To tie the administration to 200+ year old legislature is to stagnate until things break. This is relevant to the electoral process, too.

A majority of 270 EC electors, who can easily be faithless, and can also easily be bribed for more than any penalties they are likely to get, are a hole in the modern application of a centuries old process.

The penalties for voting faithlessly need to be much greater to reflect the size of the electoral economies, and/or, the number of EC electors needs to rise proportionally to the voting population size. Either of which would ameliorate the potential corruption that is probably already occurring in the process (remember that there have been numerous presidents that won the popular race, only to loose in the EC vote - a warning flag!).

It is a fairly simple math problem to solve.

You are, as always, thinking as a Progressive.

Which hasn't changed the entire time you have been posting here.

You have not evolved intellectually.

Truth is absolute. Not mutable.

There is also no way that you could know about my true cognitive processes from some text posts. You are too easily deceivable and the information you have at hand to make any determination on is very limited. Therefore you are simply, and inaccurately, trying to insult me. Do your worst, it will never make you look good by comparison.

At the end of the day you are still pushing the same tired ideas that the Founders rejected.

The founding fathers were not notably clever in their communities, or particularly remarkable even for their time, before becoming 'the founding fathers' (*registered trademark).

And they argued, and explained themselves, and their motivations, in public speeches, the media of the time, and the Federal Papers.

They also contradicted themselves and each other, a sure indicator that they weren't actually unified, and didn't really know what they were doing.



The founders had no concept of a country 200 years after their time. They wrote the Constitution for their time and their situation but America has not been defending itself against colonial taxes for all these generations.

The nice part about that is that you will in no way, shape or form ever change one iota of what American politics are.

But keep spending your time trying, puddin.

I doubt that anything posted on ATS has any capability of changing American politics. Even the stuff from your vaunted keyboard.

QTard cultists have more voice and reach than you or I. Think about that.

a reply to: Lumenari

I don’t think we need a popular vote, but I would like to see changes like ranked voting.

It’s important to remember the founding fathers had a lot of foresight, and they did a lot of things right. But they weren’t perfect, and times do change.

A lot of people act like we have to stick to exactly what they laid out. But if we did that, you wouldn’t be able to vote Lumenari.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The problem with ranked voting is at the general election the choice is between 2 members of the same party. You're much better off with the system of primaries where the best candidate from each party is selected and then face off in the general. At least the other side gets heard if not elected.

And if the founding fathers had been given the gift of foresight they most likely had put term limits on all federal positions. Including Con-gress and the civil service.

They would have been shocked at Nancy Pelosi's 120 million fortune considering her salary is $175k a year.

Sounds eminently reasonable. Will it happen? I'm not a political analyst, but sadly I think the system is rigged the way it is for a very real reason, it's not accidental. I hope for the best & pray against the worst, but where this world is heading I simply don't know what the future holds any more.

a reply to: chr0naut

That handfull in 2016 is nothing compared to the ballot cheating in 2020 is it.

Just think about what we'd have now if The EC system never existed???? 😀

A full blown popular vote system for President would be devastating for Freedom in general.

a reply to: Lumenari

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

I don’t think we need a popular vote, but I would like to see changes like ranked voting.

It’s important to remember the founding fathers had a lot of foresight, and they did a lot of things right. But they weren’t perfect, and times do change.

A lot of people act like we have to stick to exactly what they laid out. But if we did that, you wouldn’t be able to vote Lumenari.

What is ranked voting?

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat
a reply to: Lumenari

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

I don’t think we need a popular vote, but I would like to see changes like ranked voting.

It’s important to remember the founding fathers had a lot of foresight, and they did a lot of things right. But they weren’t perfect, and times do change.

A lot of people act like we have to stick to exactly what they laid out. But if we did that, you wouldn’t be able to vote Lumenari.

What is ranked voting?

Instead of voting for just one candidate, you could rank other candidates after your top pick.

So say a libertarian wanted to vote for their candidate, they could also say my second choice is ________.

It could potentially help against the stigma or belief a vote outside the two parties is a wasted vote. You still get to vote for your preferred candidate while affecting the outcome of an election with two stronger candidates.