GoldenEagle Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, ricky said: I think that instead of winner take all, states should allocate their delegates proportionally to the popular vote within the state. This would mean the electoral collage would be more comparable to the popular vote. 3 minutes ago, OneLight said: Here is the problem. One person, one vote. It makes no difference where you are. The issues derive from the culture of a particular area. In AZ, you have different reasons to vote a certain way than I do in NH. Let's look at California, the largest Electoral College body. Hillary received 5,481,885 votes, and Trump received 2,965,704. Instead of all 55 going to Hillary, why not split it up according to the real numbers? Hillary would then receive 36 Electoral College votes and Trump would receive 19. That would reflect the voters of California better instead of winner take all. I kind of like this type of solution personally. That means that votes for 3rd party or non-majority "winner" in Texas, California, and New York would count for something for example. In modern terms Texas will always go Republican. In modern terms California and New York will always go to Democrats. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 5 hours ago, ayin jade said: How is arizona surprising? Arizona has a history of voting republican in presidential elections. How is virginia surprising? Virginia governor pardoned hundreds of thousands of criminals at the last moment so they could vote, and they were expected to vote democrat. As for Virginia, the pardon was for 60,000 people. Hillary won by 185,690. If the 60,000 were never pardoned, she still would of had 125,690 more votes than Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said: I kind of like this type of solution personally. That means that votes for 3rd party or non-majority "winner" in Texas, California, and New York would count for something for example. In modern terms Texas will always go Republican. In modern terms California and New York will always go to Democrats. God bless, GE States are allowed to do this, they just choose not to, most of the time. Both Maine and Nebraska do it to a limited degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said: Would you rather have seen Hillary get in? Because right now she would have if it weren't for the electoral college. I for one believe the system was designed by geniuses, and works every bit as well today as it did in 1787. The problem is not the system, the problem is the people in it, and until you get rid of the people in it, no matter what you do it won't fix anything. Now that Hillary's out, perhaps we can finally start doing something about it. I think the best way is to give the Electoral College votes according to the percentage of those running per state. Add them all up and you have a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 32 minutes ago, Steve_S said: I think it's important to note that Trump may still have won even if there'd been no electoral college. Campaign strategy for both campaigns was focused on turning out voters in a narrow corridor of states in the midwest and florida, with extra focus on the southwest for Clinton. Had both been running a truly national campaign, it's incredibly likely that we'd have seen a different strategy employed and, even in that event, Trump would've probably won. At this point there's just no point in betting against the guy it seems. Actually, as of this post, here are the results. Donald Trump Republican Party 47% 59,589,855 Hillary Clinton Democratic Party 48% 59,796,396 Gary Johnson Libertarian Party 3% 4,055,673 Jill Stein Green Party 1% 1,211,981 Other candidates 0.7% 802,053 You are correct that if there were a different strategy, they would of campaigned in different areas. As for your last statement, I am afraid I don't follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 3 hours ago, ricky said: I think that instead of winner take all, states should allocate their delegates proportionally to the popular vote within the state. This would mean the electoral collage would be more comparable to the popular vote. I agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, Yowm said: I stated the voters of the losing party. I didn't say 'only' the voters of the losing party...yes there are exceptions. Sorry, the sentence still means the same to me. Do you have an idea as to what kind of system would work better than the one we are currently using, or are you satisfied with what we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 1 minute ago, OneLight said: Actually, as of this post, here are the results. Donald Trump Republican Party 47% 59,589,855 Hillary Clinton Democratic Party 48% 59,796,396 Gary Johnson Libertarian Party 3% 4,055,673 Jill Stein Green Party 1% 1,211,981 Other candidates 0.7% 802,053 You are correct that if there were a different strategy, they would of campaigned in different areas. As for your last statement, I am afraid I don't follow. Ah, with that I was just saying that I seriously doubt that she would've beaten him had there be no electoral college, simply because he outplayed her and beat her in several areas where republicans haven't won in decades. He simply did not campaign in a lot of the places he would've had there been a popular vote type election. You can basically look at where he made campaign stops all through the country over the past 5 months and see how he won, by going out there and talking to them personally. It would've required a lot heavier of a campaign load to do it in a national election, but he was probably capable of it. He may have been filling up stadiums instead of arenas were he going to really large metros that republicans always avoid. I suppose the point I'm making is that, demographically, the electoral college, right now, favors democrats, but he won anyway. Had this been about being able to make a high profile bus tour throughout all 50 states, that would've been right in trump's wheelhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Steve_S said: Ah, with that I was just saying that I seriously doubt that she would've beaten him had there be no electoral college, simply because he outplayed her and beat her in several areas where republicans haven't won in decades. He simply did not campaign in a lot of the places he would've had there been a popular vote type election. You can basically look at where he made campaign stops all through the country over the past 5 months and see how he won, by going out there and talking to them personally. It would've required a lot heavier of a campaign load to do it in a national election, but he was probably capable of it. He may have been filling up stadiums instead of arenas were he going to really large metros that republicans always avoid. I suppose the point I'm making is that, demographically, the electoral college, right now, favors democrats, but he won anyway. Had this been about being able to make a high profile bus tour throughout all 50 states, that would've been right in trump's wheelhouse. Actually, allow me to change that statement a little bit, after thinking about it. 36 hours ago the electoral college favored democrats, but if Trump has truly taken working class white midwestern voters away from democrats for good, that may no longer be the case. Not that it would favor republicans either, but it would be a lot more even, with both sides having to create a path to victory, rather than one side having a firewall and the other side having to shoot a tiny gap (trump knocked down the democratic firewall last night, so, as of right now, it doesn't exist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted November 9, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,762 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, Steve_S said: Ah, with that I was just saying that I seriously doubt that she would've beaten him had there be no electoral college, simply because he outplayed her and beat her in several areas where republicans haven't won in decades. He simply did not campaign in a lot of the places he would've had there been a popular vote type election. You can basically look at where he made campaign stops all through the country over the past 5 months and see how he won, by going out there and talking to them personally. It would've required a lot heavier of a campaign load to do it in a national election, but he was probably capable of it. He may have been filling up stadiums instead of arenas were he going to really large metros that republicans always avoid. I suppose the point I'm making is that, demographically, the electoral college, right now, favors democrats, but he won anyway. Had this been about being able to make a high profile bus tour throughout all 50 states, that would've been right in trump's wheelhouse. Now, this I understand! Yes, it would make more work for the delegates as they try to gain voters, but that is what an election is all about, or should be. As it now is, they just target in strategic ways, trying to out play their opponents, like a game of chess. Wouldn't it be nice that they all had to go to each state and be questioned by their residents? Too many short cuts today. Even the debats can be rigged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts