In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
"Winner Take All"
casper1947
Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have been troubled for some time with the "Winner Take All" method for Presidential Electoral votes.
It says to me that the minority voters in a state are being disenfranchised. effectively told to pound sand.
48 States and the District of Columbia use this method. I don't see total popular vote as being a solution. The reason for the Electoral College was a fear that the large States and Large cities would dominate the process. (and that is pretty much what we have now).
In 2012 Obama received 332 electoral votes and Romney 206. While Obama got 51% of the total national vote Romney got 47%.
I was thinking how about directly tying the electoral vote to a Congressional District?
Each district a candidate wins in a State is an electoral vote. In 2012 there were 435 congressional districts (electoral votes using this method). Leaving 100 to be determined. I might suggest each State 1 electoral vote for overall popular vote and one for winning the most congressional districts.
Using 2012 as a reference, the congressional results nationally were 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats. This in no way is to state these results would have been the same for President but I believe they would be close.
Thus:
Romney-234 Obama-201
now the popular vote by state:
Romney 234+24=258 Obama 201+26=227
270 was required to win. This brings it down to the 50 for most congressional districts in a state. I have not looked at each states breakdown of congressional results by party.
Yes there is definitely and argument against this. It would appear that Romney would have won using this method. in any case the electoral outcome would have been much closer (2012 popular 4%, Electoral College abt 20%).
Ware am I wrong? [?]
It says to me that the minority voters in a state are being disenfranchised. effectively told to pound sand.
48 States and the District of Columbia use this method. I don't see total popular vote as being a solution. The reason for the Electoral College was a fear that the large States and Large cities would dominate the process. (and that is pretty much what we have now).
In 2012 Obama received 332 electoral votes and Romney 206. While Obama got 51% of the total national vote Romney got 47%.
I was thinking how about directly tying the electoral vote to a Congressional District?
Each district a candidate wins in a State is an electoral vote. In 2012 there were 435 congressional districts (electoral votes using this method). Leaving 100 to be determined. I might suggest each State 1 electoral vote for overall popular vote and one for winning the most congressional districts.
Using 2012 as a reference, the congressional results nationally were 234 Republicans and 201 Democrats. This in no way is to state these results would have been the same for President but I believe they would be close.
Thus:
Romney-234 Obama-201
now the popular vote by state:
Romney 234+24=258 Obama 201+26=227
270 was required to win. This brings it down to the 50 for most congressional districts in a state. I have not looked at each states breakdown of congressional results by party.
Yes there is definitely and argument against this. It would appear that Romney would have won using this method. in any case the electoral outcome would have been much closer (2012 popular 4%, Electoral College abt 20%).
Ware am I wrong? [?]
Comments