General Discussion

MurrayDelph

(5,747 posts)

49. I've been proposing something similar

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 08:22 PM

Sep 2017

I want to keep the Electoral College, but change it to a dual-proportional allotment.

If State X has 10% of the country's eligible voters, State X gets 10% of the country's Electoral College allotment.

If Candidate Y wins 65% of State X's votes, Candidate Y gets 65% of State X's Electoral College for a total of 6.5% of the National Electoral College total.

That way, the votes are still proportional, but stealing an election becomes harder. This way, if State Z finds itself with more Republican votes than there are voters in that state, the only state that gets screwed is their own.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The problem is not the electoral college itself. [View all] JayhawkSD Sep 2017 OP

Duck, Jayhawk ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #1

Great post PJMcK Sep 2017 #2

If you are going to give out percentages, padfun Sep 2017 #3

Here's Why I Think It's Salable ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #13

Playing the Devil's Advocate for a moment Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #20

No, That's Fair ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #39

NPV does Not take an Amendment & Is Supported by Small staters mvymvy Sep 2017 #41

You Sure? ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #42

States are enacting the bill mvymvy Sep 2017 #44

Because it still gives small states more power. tinrobot Sep 2017 #33

The EC is no different than grading kids on a curve randr Sep 2017 #4

It's more screwed up than that. yallerdawg Sep 2017 #5

If only there was another house of congress... Baconator Sep 2017 #55

The house that's gerrymandered to the point... yallerdawg Sep 2017 #59

Then the issue is with gerrymandering... Baconator Sep 2017 #62

Thanks for doing the work on the calculations, but since they line up with the popular vote... brush Sep 2017 #6

3% of U.S. could stop Amendment mvymvy Sep 2017 #16

Thanks for that. That makes sense. brush Sep 2017 #17

There is at least 1 move to modify it without the Amendment route to ditch it UTUSN Sep 2017 #7

That will work fine until customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #9

Withdrawal is not possible until after Inauguration mvymvy Sep 2017 #12

Perhaps so customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #18

Passed in red, blue and purple states mvymvy Sep 2017 #15

Yes, it has passed in a couple of red states in PARTS of the legislature customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #19

77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote. mvymvy Sep 2017 #23

Maine and Nebraska customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #24

Well, if you say so . . . But mvymvy Sep 2017 #37

They won't just drop out, they'll sue. hughee99 Sep 2017 #54

The other way would be by congressional district...have you heard about a little thing called Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #8

I don't see it happening customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #10

It certainly could happen. In fact that would be a way for the GOP to retain power and it has been Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #31

Congress would have decided 2016 election mvymvy Sep 2017 #11

Yes, Wyoming would have as much a say in who won as California customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #21

Obama would have been elected following the new rules as well. padfun Sep 2017 #25

So so "ancient rules" & not designed by Founders mvymvy Sep 2017 #34

Wyoming already has more of a say per capita than California does Orrex Sep 2017 #46

The same can be said of Wyoming's representation in the US Senate customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #48

National Popular Vote bill does not change anything in Constitution mvymvy Sep 2017 #50

I was commenting on customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #57

No, it's not the same thing. Orrex Sep 2017 #52

Whether it should or shouldn't customerserviceguy Sep 2017 #58

3% of U.S. could stop Amendment to abolish mvymvy Sep 2017 #60

Yes! That's the bill I was trying to remember Orrex Sep 2017 #61

The constitution does specify the states say how they choose their electors muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #14

38 states are politically irrelevant in presidential general elections mvymvy Sep 2017 #35

In the 1960 election, the swing states were Illinois and Texas oberliner Sep 2017 #43

Many states have not been competitive for more than a half-century mvymvy Sep 2017 #45

There are no states that have not been competitive for more than half a century oberliner Sep 2017 #47

One thing we need to be aware of folks... Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #22

Yes, that is why the coalition of states. padfun Sep 2017 #26

But that won't be the only measure moving forward. Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #27

I know. Like you said, padfun Sep 2017 #28

That's their plan to "gerrymander" the EC bigbrother05 Sep 2017 #29

"...if all states allocated their electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote..." Iggo Sep 2017 #30

Proportional would not be the same as winning by national popular vote mvymvy Sep 2017 #36

Here's my beef with the EC TexasBushwhacker Sep 2017 #32

Thank you! ProudLib72 Sep 2017 #38

I doubt they'd proportion votes like that. Calista241 Sep 2017 #40

I've been proposing something similar MurrayDelph Sep 2017 #49

One person, One vote mvymvy Sep 2017 #51

Recommended. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #53

there has been a push to do just that. shanny Sep 2017 #56