It's sour grapes to complain about this after the fact.  -  Common

Ok, I've stopped beating my head with a 2x4 and will respond for the last freakin' time on this. I never ever ever ever thought the electoral college system was a good idea from day one.  It has absolutely nothing to do with this election or any other one.  The popular vote was lost by John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George Bush and Donald Trump ............. some were Republicans and some were Democrats.  For godsake it's not about a particular team winning or losing.  It's about making an election more representative of the people who voted!

All I'm asking for is a response to the 'all-or-nothing' vs a 'proportional' system for awarding electoral college votes.  For some reason both Maine and Nebraska could do it without creating alot of political constipation, but evidently it's too hard for the other 48 states.
 

Last edited by Just Fred (12/18/2016 6:13 pm)

"Right now there is a zero chance of this happening!".  Common Sense



"I don't see it happening either.".     Brady Bunch



I agree . . . Especially with a group of highly partisan, self serving, obstructionist legislators in the senate and house.

I think they'll protect the status quo until the last breath of their political life, and then they'll become a talking head on some 24 hour "news" network or a lobbyist for one of the big donors to their campaign.

Screw the will of the people ! ! !

Last edited by Rongone (12/18/2016 6:54 pm)

There's a big difference between 0 % and 49%.
Just sayin'

And we are "concerned:" that the guy who wins the most votes of The People,  just "represents a small area", and does not represent the "interests of the People",  while we are content that  the guy who did NOT get the most votes  from The People represents us all,,,,,,,?
That is absolutely Orwellian logic.

Last edited by Goose (12/18/2016 7:25 pm)

Just Fred wrote:

I am fine if individual states decide they want to award their electors proportionally. -  Brady

Ok, that's all I asked.  Don't have to jettison the electoral college entirely (although that would suit me just fine), but just make the system more reflective of the voting population.

See, I'm a reasonable guy willing to compromise by finding some common ground. 
 

It seems to me going to a system like that would include an even greater portion in the election discussion.  Candidates would have incentive to visit close Congressional districts in NY, TX, CA, IL and other states where they currently aren't visited unless it is for a fundraiser.

I think it would be difficult to convince states to go to this since the party in charge of the state would be giving up power and guaranteed electors.

As I have said before, I think the electoral college system has served us well over our short history. Out of 58 presidential elections, we've only had this abnormality of the popular vote differing from the electoral vote 5 times (assuming nothing goes wacky today).

So more than 90% of the time, there is no issue. So I don't see a need to go through a constitutional change in how we handle presidential elections.

Now if individual states, like Maine and Nebraska did, want to change their election laws to make their electoral votes proportional, then I have no issue with it.