An Implausible New Electoral Process?

a reply to: ntech620

I don’t see the issue.

You could have ranked in the primary and general.

The benefit in the general isn’t selecting multiple people from the same party. It’s being able to go Libertarian and Republican as your second pick, or Green and then Democrat.

It makes third parties more viable. People would get to go their preferred route while also having a say in what they might view as more realistic.

In time the third parties might be realistic if people give them more votes. More votes and they make the debate stages too.

We need more option, and not just the options but the dialog that comes with it.

a reply to: Degradation33

That's an interesting question. Considering that CA is a One Party Rule state, I seriously doubt the Party would agree to something that would lessen it's power. I am seeing the Party now more actively pushing for abolishing the Electoral college to establish majority popular vote for POTUS. That would cement establishment of One Party Rule at the Federal level.

originally posted by: Cvastar
a reply to: Degradation33

That's an interesting question. Considering that CA is a One Party Rule state, I seriously doubt the Party would agree to something that would lessen it's power. I am seeing the Party now more actively pushing for abolishing the Electoral college to establish majority popular vote for POTUS. That would cement establishment of One Party Rule at the Federal level.

I thought of this as the hybrid middle ground between a popular vote and electoral college.

Last Republican to win the popular vote was 20 years ago. Bush over Kerry. I reject the popular vote for that reason.

But congressional districts usually tip across the center balance point like waves on an ocean. And if we've fully committed to this two-party thing, let's try to do it as refined as possible.

I think, in my delusional not really supported way, it becomes like a popular electoral vote. Change 538 to 435 and go from there.

My hang up is the gerrymandering. If we used the hypothetical one elector per district, Arizona, if the 2022 elections were an indication, vote for the Republican 6-3, with all district populations as close to equal as possible. It would send district redraws into overdrive. Social equilibrium tendencies suggests it would fins its level eventually.

I still think a possible split electorate from every state best addresses THIS map of America. The urban vs rural as opposed to red state/blue state.



ETA:

Refine the questions to, "how would you change the electoral college, if at all, to be more representative of the popular vote in each state?

Do you think it needs to any more representative than it already is?

a reply to: Degradation33

Hmm, I now understand better after researching how Electoral votes are winner take all in 48 states, Maine and Nebraska being the two who distribute votes proportionally.

I like your idea.......that would be interesting.

a reply to: Degradation33
We are getting somewhere, thanks! These maps showing shades of purple show our country much better than Red or Blue. ther.

I would like each state to award its Electoral votes proportionally, and have them awarded, no individual people who can be faithless. We may think of Texas and California as one party states, but the out party still gets plenty of votes, and proportional voting would give an effective vote to them. Probably better turnout from the currently-discouraged.

But, it would take an Amendment, so ....sigh

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

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

I'm still waiting for any of the claims of voter fraud in the 2020 elections to be upheld. I do know of 19 that have been convicted, but 18 of those were the false electors that were pro-Trump.

The 10 faithless electors in 2016 was the greatest number of faithless EC electors in 100 years of US history.

There were no faithless EC electors in 2020. None.

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.

How?

If the actual people voted for the President, and it was a one person, one vote system, the smaller states individually would loose power to the more populous ones, but at least there would be less likelihood of corruption in the selection of government.

But I was not suggesting that the EC be abolished. I was suggesting that it be re-factored to represent the growth in population over time, and that the system needs revision to harden it against corruption and fraud.

Every time but once since the 1956 election where there have been faithless electors, the EC has elected a Republican for President. There is a clear potential for corruption, and a clear weighting towards one particular party in that.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.

In most countries, voting is ranked so that you can identify, in order, those that you prefer. Like giving a top five of politicians. This allows electors to demonstrate their preferences by policy rather than only being a popularity contest.

The other option thing is preferential voting where a candidate may loose, but still give their 'preferences' to another candidate that they like. In this way, there can be alliances of parties with a similar spread of similar policies, and again it make the type of administrative governance and policy based election, rather than some sort of show-biz popularity contest.

A good example of what the electoral college is designed to do is as follows:

You live in an HOA community that has 5 houses. The residents are as follows.
1. 1 person,
2, 2 persons,
3. 2. persons,
4, 1 person,
5, 7 persons.

In a purely one-house one vote (one state, one vote), house 5 wants to put up a porn billboard in their front lawn. It is easily defeated. In a pure democracy, (one person, one vote). It can't be prevented. Conversely, house 5 hates the smell of BBQ and votes away outdoor grills.

The EC is designed to deal with this issue by giving both a population based vote as well as state by state representation. Having a handful of population centers determine how farmers in iowa can grow crops is not so simple as you would wind up with in a pure democracy.

Another reason we are a Republic and not a pure democracy is so we don't wind up with Boaty McBoatface solutions.

Is it perfect? No, but a pure democracy would be an absolute disaster

originally posted by: Halfswede
A good example of what the electoral college is designed to do is as follows:

You live in an HOA community that has 5 houses. The residents are as follows.
1. 1 person,
2, 2 persons,
3. 2. persons,
4, 1 person,
5, 7 persons.

In a purely one-house one vote (one state, one vote), house 5 wants to put up a porn billboard in their front lawn. It is easily defeated. In a pure democracy, (one person, one vote). It can't be prevented. Conversely, house 5 hates the smell of BBQ and votes away outdoor grills.

The EC is designed to deal with this issue by giving both a population based vote as well as state by state representation. Having a handful of population centers determine how farmers in iowa can grow crops is not so simple as you would wind up with in a pure democracy.

Another reason we are a Republic and not a pure democracy is so we don't wind up with Boaty McBoatface solutions.

Is it perfect? No, but a pure democracy would be an absolute disaster

The US electoral system uses sets of primaries to reduce the vote to essentially two candidates, and no other real options. It is therefore locked in to the two major parties and does not represent the preferences of the people. It is a 'winner takes all' system better suited to a game show.

This even applies to the Electoral College.

And look back through history at the 'administrative quality' of final two candidates it chooses every - single - time!

It's ludicrous that so many people, over 200 years, haven't cottoned on to the fact that this isn't happening everywhere else in the free-world.



It is FLAGGY McFLAGface.

a reply to: chr0naut

There's more than 2 candidates on ballots for president.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Halfswede
A good example of what the electoral college is designed to do is as follows:

You live in an HOA community that has 5 houses. The residents are as follows.
1. 1 person,
2, 2 persons,
3. 2. persons,
4, 1 person,
5, 7 persons.

In a purely one-house one vote (one state, one vote), house 5 wants to put up a porn billboard in their front lawn. It is easily defeated. In a pure democracy, (one person, one vote). It can't be prevented. Conversely, house 5 hates the smell of BBQ and votes away outdoor grills.

The EC is designed to deal with this issue by giving both a population based vote as well as state by state representation. Having a handful of population centers determine how farmers in iowa can grow crops is not so simple as you would wind up with in a pure democracy.

Another reason we are a Republic and not a pure democracy is so we don't wind up with Boaty McBoatface solutions.

Is it perfect? No, but a pure democracy would be an absolute disaster

The US electoral system uses sets of primaries to reduce the vote to essentially two candidates, and no other real options. It is therefore locked in to the two major parties and does not represent the preferences of the people. It is a 'winner takes all' system better suited to a game show.

This even applies to the Electoral College.

And look back through history at the 'administrative quality' of final two candidates it chooses every - single - time!

It's ludicrous that so many people, over 200 years, haven't cottoned on to the fact that this isn't happening everywhere else in the free-world.

It is FLAGGY McFLAGface.

I would go one further and say that democracy is by it's very nature a temporary thing that can only last a few hundred years as people never want to make sacrifices but only keep taking more of a pie that doesn't exist. If you put to popular vote tomorrow whether we should all get 200k per year given to us by the govt, it would pass. No one would work and it would be steaming rubble within 5 years. People need an adult in the room (good or bad), to smash things back into a simpler state from time to time.

There is no mechanism for proper reset in democracy and this is IMO just a natural part of the process. We shall see.

a reply to: chr0naut

Unfortunately people see such change as extremist.

Ironically, those who view it that way cling to the “purist” view of the original rules.

Those rules were land owning white males. That’s not to dunk on the founding fathers, because the US is the longest running democracy today.

What the founding fathers got right was the flexibility to change things so long as there was a wide agreement.

I don’t believe we should have a “pure” democracy reliant on popular vote. Cities would rule the country, and I can anecdotally profess to the dangers of that in Virginia where COVID policy was laid out with northern Virginia in mind.

If something were to change, I see ranked choice voting being the best of all worlds without serious ramifications. It puts more power to the voter without shifting the scales towards any one entity. In fact, I think it gives power away from the entities that have been a plague.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: chr0naut

Unfortunately people see such change as extremist.

Ironically, those who view it that way cling to the “purist” view of the original rules.

Those rules were land owning white males. That’s not to dunk on the founding fathers, because the US is the longest running democracy today.

But the USA is not, even now, a direct democracy and the Roman Republic, although no longer existent, and only partially democratic when it did exist, and quite corrupt, lasted for longer than the US republic. And many countries had elected parliaments but also retained a monarchy before and for longer than the USA has existed, so that point is 'arguable'.

However, the American version of democracy has existed longer than any other American style democracy.

What the founding fathers got right was the flexibility to change things so long as there was a wide agreement.

I don’t believe we should have a “pure” democracy reliant on popular vote. Cities would rule the country, and I can anecdotally profess to the dangers of that in Virginia where COVID policy was laid out with northern Virginia in mind.

If something were to change, I see ranked choice voting being the best of all worlds without serious ramifications. It puts more power to the voter without shifting the scales towards any one entity. In fact, I think it gives power away from the entities that have been a plague.

I believe that the Constitutional modified Westminster system used in Australia, with mandatory voting, ranked voting, and preferential vote sharing, is superior to that used in the US (The only thing they need to do to perfect the Aussie system is to make the final break with the overseas monarchy).