• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Electoral College

How about electoral votes distributed based off of GDP per a capita. You get a good mix of small and large states, like hello important North Dakota and Alaska but Massachusetts and New York also stay important.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
How about electoral votes distributed based off of GDP per a capita. You get a good mix of small and large states, like hello important North Dakota and Alaska but Massachusetts and New York also stay important.
Click to expand...

Poor Mississippi takes votes away from their winner.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
How about electoral votes distributed based off of GDP per a capita. You get a good mix of small and large states, like hello important North Dakota and Alaska but Massachusetts and New York also stay important.
Click to expand...

I'd be okay with that. Or something like this, too, could be a good measure (and an incentive for Republican leadership to actually create jobs/mobility in the states that they are responsible for running [instead of pretending that they are not sucking on the taxpayer teat]):

966724856.jpg


From: Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?
 
Last edited:
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Givers/takers is a bad frame of analysis that is destructive of national feeling and solidarity
Click to expand...

I do find it ironic that leadership from the "taker" states are simultaneously actual welfare queens and congressional obstructionist divas.
 
amount of electoral votes should be in inverse order of average self esteem level of the state's citizen.
 
Candidates should spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on California, New York or Texas compared to a state like New Hampshire. The way the system is now it's the exact opposite of that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Strickland33 said:
Why should anybody care about those states? You still haven't really answered this question. With the exception of agricultural R&D in IA (supported in corporate and university environments), I'm not really sure what either state really contributes and whether that contribution warrants weighting influence in the way that both the primary system and the EC system ultimately do for those states.

I'm also not sure how catering to states like OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc. is elitist either, another point that you have yet to acknowledge. You call it elitism, but I call it free market decisions about where people want to live. The most populace states should have more influence and there are a lot of populace states beyond CA and NY that do get an inordinate amount of attention on the campaign trail (see: OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc.). Even beyond that, your premise appears to be that states like CA and NY are uniform in their political leanings That also doesn't pass the smell test. Half of CA is rural/agricultural/military (not to mention the fact that Silicon Valley appears to lean libertarian on average) and NY is rust belt once you leave the NYC metro area. Cutting those parts of the country out of the democratic process because LA/SF/NYC vote blue is pretty stupid, too.

Furthermore (and please clarify if this is not the case) your premise appears to be that a vote in IA and NH is more valuable than a vote in CA And NY. I find that to be pretty undemocratic.



ETA: I agree with this post, too. It makes me think that an effect of the EC system will be path dependent in the sense that states that (stupidly) matter under this system will continue to matter because they are some of the few states with institutionalized GOTV infrastructure. That is to say, voters in IA are accustomed to swinging elections and will continue to vote as if they still have this ability even if the EC were to be dissolved.
Click to expand...

The more populated states do have more influence. That's why Iowa gets a lot less electoral votes than California. What you seem to be complaining about is that California is more heavily democratic than Iowa was republican in this particular election. I guess you could be complaining Iowa and other states have a winner take all formula for electoral votes, but I guess that goes for California and other states as well. As for what any particular state "adds" - I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I enjoy talking on my iphone, watching movies and eating (Iowa helps a lot with that last one). It isn't as if some of our states would do all that well without goods and services from other states. California, for instance, needs water. The fact some states are more reflective of a divided electorate does make them more important in the EC, fair enough. That's why they are called "battlegrounds". They are the states most reflective of the fact we have a very divided electorate nationally.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Candidates should spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on California, New York or Texas compared to a state like New Hampshire. The way the system is now it's the exact opposite of that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on whether you think of the election more like the senate or the house of representatives. Seems to me the electoral college is designed to fall sort of in between those two concepts.
 
DeacMan said:
The more populated states do have more influence. That's why Iowa gets a lot less electoral votes than California. What you seem to be complaining about is that California is more heavily democratic than Iowa was republican in this particular election. I guess you could be complaining Iowa and other states have a winner take all formula for electoral votes, but I guess that goes for California and other states as well. As for what any particular state "adds" - I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I enjoy talking on my iphone, watching movies and eating (Iowa helps a lot with that last one). It isn't as if some of our states would do all that well without goods and services from other states. California, for instance, needs water. The fact some states are more reflective of a divided electorate does make them more important in the EC, fair enough. That's why they are called "battlegrounds". They are the states most reflective of the fact we have a very divided electorate nationally.
Click to expand...

A vote for POTUS count should the same no matter where you are. No one's vote should count more for POTUS. With the EC, it does.
 
DeacMan said:
The more populated states do have more influence. That's why Iowa gets a lot less electoral votes than California. What you seem to be complaining about is that California is more heavily democratic than Iowa was republican in this particular election. I guess you could be complaining Iowa and other states have a winner take all formula for electoral votes, but I guess that goes for California and other states as well. As for what any particular state "adds" - I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I enjoy talking on my iphone, watching movies and eating (Iowa helps a lot with that last one). It isn't as if some of our states would do all that well without goods and services from other states. California, for instance, needs water. The fact some states are more reflective of a divided electorate does make them more important in the EC, fair enough. That's why they are called "battlegrounds". They are the states most reflective of the fact we have a very divided electorate nationally.
Click to expand...
What I'm complaining about is that a state can be hugely populated but if it's not going to be competitive from a winner-take-all standpoint than the minority and majority voters in that state and their specific concerns are really irrelevant to a presidential candidate. Rural California voters who are Republican might have a much different take on immigration since Mexicans are much more integral part of their economy but it doesn't matter from a presidential election standpoint. The current system places ridiculous amounts of importance on the issues of a certain small minority of the population.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
 
ChrisL68 said:
What I'm complaining about is that a state can be hugely populated but if it's not going to be competitive from a winner-take-all standpoint than the minority and majority voters in that state and their specific concerns are really irrelevant to a presidential candidate. Rural California voters who are Republican might have a much different take on immigration since Mexicans are much more integral part of their economy but it doesn't matter from a presidential election standpoint. The current system places ridiculous amounts of importance on the issues of a certain small minority of the population.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's one way of looking at it. And I get it, living in a state that has not voted Republican in a POTUS election since well before Reagan. The flip side is that battleground states are battlegrounds for a reason - the electorate is split (which is pretty much the reality nation wide). Would Clinton have won by more with a pure vote. Would Trump have won more votes overall. Hard to say.

One thing it seems to do is make money even that much more important in the election.
 
RJKarl said:
A vote for POTUS count should the same no matter where you are. No one's vote should count more for POTUS. With the EC, it does.
Click to expand...

I think all but a couple of states have a winner-take-all approach with electors. Something similar to what you want is available without doing away with the EC if the other states change the rules. However, I don't think the fact that there are millions of more Dem votes accumulated by NY, IL, & CA means that the country would be adequately represented by a popular vote, and the framers realized that likelihood. And, electors can choose not to vote for the president elect, so you should start a campaign with them.

An idea that is more representative is to split up the states. South Florida and North Florida have different views. Same thing in VA. Eastern and Western New York disagree on many issues, and probably the same with NorCal and SoCal. Why not explore that option? Or, just have Dems "carpetbag" to the South like they're doing in VA.

Bottom line is that HRC ran a flawed campaign that failed to motivate her base to vote. In my opinion, if you don't vote, you can't complain. Nonetheless, many protesters did not vote. I'm not thrilled with Trump either, but there's no reason to go Bz on the system.
 
At this point in history, there is no reason for an EC. Many of the ideas on voting have changed since the writing of the Constitution. I doubt the Founding Father could have seen a scenario where one state has 40-70 times the population of another or that there a couple of metro areas that each have more people than all of the colonies combined or women voting or many other things.
 
We just disagree, as i believe that's exactly what the framers envisioned. However, they probably thought the South would be in control because of a more favorable climate. Nonetheless, I'm serious about splitting up the states. North and South Carolina was originally the Province of Carolina until the rural Northern part clashed with the aristocratic Southern part, particularly the Charleston area.
 
RJK should be prohibited from posting on this subject again until he reads the Federalist Papers. The Framers clearly rejected pure democracy because it has never lasted. It's dumb to say you think they were wrong, given the success of the federalist republic they created, but even dumber to suggest they wouldn't have done what they did had they known what demographic trends would be over 200 years later. Kind of incredible that people who have the benefit of hindsight still get it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top