How about this for the electoral college?

[TBayXXXVII 2,115]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

Not the only reason. But it certainly helped. 

...and we're right back to where we started.  You don't know that because you don't know how people would have voted had the current system not been in place.

[shorepatrol 1,737]

11 hours ago, MDC said:

They won’t ever give up the EC.

We won't ever be ruled by california and new york. Not sorry your girl lost 

[Thornton Melon 544]

13 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm actually ok with changing things about it.  For example, the electoral votes can stay in place, but I'm ok with congressional districts giving the votes, not the state.  Maine and Nebraska do it.  In 2016, it was the first time where both candidates received votes from the same state.  Clinton won the state, but only got 3 of the 4 electoral votes, Trump got the other because he won that district.  I'm fine with us doing it that way across the board.   I'm also ok with the electoral votes being split up based on percentage of the popular vote.  Alabama has 9 electoral votes, the Trump won.  He got 62.08% of the votes and Clinton got 34.36%.  I'd be ok with Trump getting 62.08% of the 9 votes (5.59 electoral votes) and Hillary getting 34.36% for 3.09 votes.  If simple multiplication and 2 digit decimals are too hard for someone to understand, then maybe that can be a requirement to vote or not vote. 

You know, your 2nd idea is essentially the same thing as the popular vote.

ETA: Never mind, I forgot each state gets 2 electoral votes to account for the Senate. So, the smaller states end up getting a slight advantage.

I still don't like it

[wiffleball 4,639]

Okay, how about whoevers "month" it is gets to be president for that month?

Black history month, gay pride month, Asian American contribution month, National woodworkers month, women's month, cat lovers dog lovers , mental health , Native Americans, whatever.

... And the blacks already complaining because they get shorted on February.

[TBayXXXVII 2,115]

3 hours ago, Thornton Melon said:

You know, your 2nd idea is essentially the same thing as the popular vote.

ETA: Never mind, I forgot each state gets 2 electoral votes to account for the Senate. So, the smaller states end up getting a slight advantage.

I still don't like it

The larger states get a much bigger advantage because of their population in that they have more HoR votes.  To give a little on the Senate side is not unreasonable.  Though, my preference would be to go to congressional districts.

[Thornton Melon 544]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The larger states get a much bigger advantage because of their population in that they have more HoR votes.  To give a little on the Senate side is not unreasonable.  Though, my preference would be to go to congressional districts.

Yeah, I meant compared to a pure national popular vote, the voters in smaller states would get an edge in your scenario, like they do now with the EC, but not as much.

I'm pro EC all the way, but I could get on board with the district idea.

[TBayXXXVII 2,115]

41 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

Yeah, I meant compared to a pure national popular vote, the voters in smaller states would get an edge in your scenario, like they do now with the EC, but not as much.

I'm pro EC all the way, but I could get on board with the district idea.

I'm with you, I'm fine with leaving it as is, but I wouldn't opposed a congressional district approach.

 

My guess is that the Dems would only want the popular vote and that's it.  With Clinton losing a vote in Maine, that might signal to them that the congressional districts would only help the Reps.

[posty 2,296]

3 hours ago, wiffleball said:

Okay, how about whoevers "month" it is gets to be president for that month?

Black history month, gay pride month, Asian American contribution month, National woodworkers month, women's month, cat lovers dog lovers , mental health , Native Americans, whatever.

... And the blacks already complaining because they get shorted on February.

They get an extra day every four years...

[tanatastic 2,061]

The side that lost will always want the system to be changed. There are probably multiple threads going back 8 years during Obama’s terms from the righties saying there needs to be a change and CA gets too many votes and such and such.

As for the EC as it is, It’s a necessary system and it works well enough imo. For a repub to win when NY and CA have so much weight is proof that enough people really wanted a change from the norm.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

5 hours ago, wiffleball said:

Okay, how about whoevers "month" it is gets to be president for that month?

Black history month, gay pride month, Asian American contribution month, National woodworkers month, women's month, cat lovers dog lovers , mental health , Native Americans, whatever.

... And the blacks already complaining because they get shorted on February.

You've got Ritalin Deprived Retahd Month       

[jerryskids 5,192]

On 4/4/2019 at 2:14 PM, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm actually ok with changing things about it.  For example, the electoral votes can stay in place, but I'm ok with congressional districts giving the votes, not the state.  Maine and Nebraska do it.  In 2016, it was the first time where both candidates received votes from the same state.  Clinton won the state, but only got 3 of the 4 electoral votes, Trump got the other because he won that district.  I'm fine with us doing it that way across the board.   I'm also ok with the electoral votes being split up based on percentage of the popular vote.  Alabama has 9 electoral votes, the Trump won.  He got 62.08% of the votes and Clinton got 34.36%.  I'd be ok with Trump getting 62.08% of the 9 votes (5.59 electoral votes) and Hillary getting 34.36% for 3.09 votes.  If simple multiplication and 2 digit decimals are too hard for someone to understand, then maybe that can be a requirement to vote or not vote. 

Your Alabama scenario is basically a popular vote, if I followed it correctly. 

[Thornton Melon 544]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Your Alabama scenario is basically a popular vote, if I followed it correctly. 

Stop thinking like an engineer, jerry!

I said the same thing, then I realized that each state also gets 2 electoral votes for Senate representation. If it wasn't for that, and there were 436 electoral votes total, you'd be right.

[jerryskids 5,192]

16 hours ago, Thornton Melon said:

Stop thinking like an engineer, jerry!

I said the same thing, then I realized that each state also gets 2 electoral votes for Senate representation. If it wasn't for that, and there were 436 electoral votes total, you'd be right.

Interesting, I'm going to flaunt my ignorance on this.  But the google machine confirmed it.

It seems like this would benefit smaller (typically more red than blue) states because smaller states get a larger bump from the 2 Senators.   

 

[Thornton Melon 544]

42 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Interesting, I'm going to flaunt my ignorance on this.  But the google machine confirmed it.

It seems like this would benefit smaller (typically more red than blue) states because smaller states get a larger bump from the 2 Senators.   

 

Yes, the small states get a larger bump from the 2 Senators in the Alabama scenario.

If the Alabama scenario didn't include the 2 senatorial spots, and only considered the Congressional District electoral votes, it would be the same as the popular vote (with slight variations for state demographics).

[wiffleball 4,639]

How about we double the electoral votes for every state that has the letter Q in it?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Voted in Florida and New Hampshire.

Not only do we need a national Voter ID but an overhaul of the voter rolls DAILY.

[Cruzer 1,992]

I'm cool with the EC the way it is.

[RLLD 3,455]

6 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

I'm cool with the EC the way it is.

Right. But the current system is not securing power for the Democrats in totalitarian form, therefore they want to make changes that will secure that totalitarian outcome.

[Cruzer 1,992]

5 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

Right. But the current system is not securing power for the Democrats in totalitarian form, therefore they want to make changes that will secure that totalitarian outcome.

The Dems will be fine.... they pulled off back-to-back 8 year terms with Billy and Obama - it will come around again. And when it does it will be the Repubs doing the crying (about whatever) just like they did during those 16 years of Clinton and Barak.

It's the Repubs turn, they won - time for the Dems to let it go.

[RLLD 3,455]

2 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

The Dems will be fine.... they pulled off back-to-back 8 year terms with Billy and Obama - it will come around again. And when it does it will be the Repubs doing the crying (about whatever) just like they did during those 16 years of Clinton and Barak.

It's the Repubs turn, they won - time for the Dems to let it go.

I agree completely.   I think they will of course bounce back and get the white house, and the Senate as well.  Thought with their current behaviors it might take some time.....

My point is simply that ANY failure to grab power results in a response from Democrats that is at the very least unseemly and at worst criminal.   Their response to Trump winning was a farcical investigation, violence, incessant intrigue to undermine a legitimately elected president.  he places Supreme Court Justices, they want to expand the court to attempt to offset him...lower the voting age to get wider access to people easily manipulated....

They are doing all the things they stated that Trump WOULD do.  All along they project exactly what is in their hearts.  And, we all know darn right well that they are exploiting the poor, misusing actual social problems, lying, just everything that represents the worst of people.....because that is who they are now, it is the only behaviors they will even accept.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Just now, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

I agree completely.   I think they will of course bounce back and get the white house, and the Senate as well.  Thought with their current behaviors it might take some time.....

My point is simply that ANY failure to grab power results in a response from Democrats that is at the very least unseemly and at worst criminal.   Their response to Trump winning was a farcical investigation, violence, incessant intrigue to undermine a legitimately elected president.  he places Supreme Court Justices, they want to expand the court to attempt to offset him...lower the voting age to get wider access to people easily manipulated....

They are doing all the things they stated that Trump WOULD do.  All along they project exactly what is in their hearts.  And, we all know darn right well that they are exploiting the poor, misusing actual social problems, lying, just everything that represents the worst of people.....because that is who they are now, it is the only behaviors they will even accept.

Birther Conspiracies and a stained Lewinsky dress - power grabs come in all shapes and sizes.

As they say - forest for the trees......

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, Cruzer said:

Birther Conspiracies and a stained Lewinsky dress - power grabs come in all shapes and sizes.

As they say - forest for the trees......

At least the Republicans learned from that travesty, admit to having learned from it.  Dems seem to not care at all, moreover, fabricating a false narrative with fraudulent  FISA warrants? That is pretty extreme.

[Voltaire 4,556]

On 4/7/2019 at 4:42 AM, wiffleball said:

How about we double the electoral votes for every state that has the letter Q in it?

We could make Mozambique the 51st state.