Larry Gude
Strung Out
...let's use a poll!
Choosing our President...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
I'm having a tough time wrapping my fingers around this one. Besides Congressional districts we have the electoral votes associated with the Senators also, how would those be handled? Would winning the popular vote for the state get you those two votes too or would there be some arbitrary awarding of them?
In essence the winner takes all concept used by I believe 48 of the 50 states doesn't seem quite fair, but what would?
In essence the winner takes all concept used by I believe 48 of the 50 states doesn't seem quite fair, but what would?
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
The opposition comes from large states who would lose thier status during the elections. Politicians would actually have to campaign to wing, not just kow tow to Texas, California etc etc.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well...
...how indeed?
As we're making this up, let's come to a consensus.
For starters, let's say we stay with the Constitutional way that it is now so that we're only talking about a state by state change and not a national, Constitutional amendment. This makes it more realisticly doable and keeps, I think, within the spirit and intent of the founders; always a good thing.
So, let the states decide.
Maine and Nebraska, the only to 'district' states, do as you suggest.
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm
Interestingly, neither state has yet to split it's electoral votes in any way; whomever won the popualr, won all the districts as well. We know this would not be the case in Maryland.
I think anyone who lives in a winner take all state and is in a rather decided minority, like GOP'ers in Maryland, can appreciate the district method, so, in recognition of that I think Maryland would HAVE to give it's extra two to the pop vote winner to even consider a district plan.
So, perhaps we do what Maine and Nebraska are already doing.
Bottom line, I think it forces the big parties to compete more broadly, a good thing if you want to see the candidates at the gas station. It would also clearly open up room for alll the smaller parties, giving them more visibility and stature AND giving us a truer picture of who we are politically as a people instead of this red/blue nonsense that NO one thinks is accurate.
It's one thing to win, say, 1,000,000 votes, as Nader did, or 19,000,000 as Perot did. It is quite another to win several electoral votes that end up denying either of the jumbo parties a majority.
This means we're looking at some elections being thrown into the House to be decided. This means, to me, far more interesting politics in our nation which means far more participation which is as it should be.
Ken King said:
...how indeed?
As we're making this up, let's come to a consensus.
For starters, let's say we stay with the Constitutional way that it is now so that we're only talking about a state by state change and not a national, Constitutional amendment. This makes it more realisticly doable and keeps, I think, within the spirit and intent of the founders; always a good thing.
So, let the states decide.
Maine and Nebraska, the only to 'district' states, do as you suggest.
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm
Interestingly, neither state has yet to split it's electoral votes in any way; whomever won the popualr, won all the districts as well. We know this would not be the case in Maryland.
I think anyone who lives in a winner take all state and is in a rather decided minority, like GOP'ers in Maryland, can appreciate the district method, so, in recognition of that I think Maryland would HAVE to give it's extra two to the pop vote winner to even consider a district plan.
So, perhaps we do what Maine and Nebraska are already doing.
Bottom line, I think it forces the big parties to compete more broadly, a good thing if you want to see the candidates at the gas station. It would also clearly open up room for alll the smaller parties, giving them more visibility and stature AND giving us a truer picture of who we are politically as a people instead of this red/blue nonsense that NO one thinks is accurate.
It's one thing to win, say, 1,000,000 votes, as Nader did, or 19,000,000 as Perot did. It is quite another to win several electoral votes that end up denying either of the jumbo parties a majority.
This means we're looking at some elections being thrown into the House to be decided. This means, to me, far more interesting politics in our nation which means far more participation which is as it should be.
bcp
In My Opinion
I would like to see the statewide elections done by county representation instead of the majority vote also.
Im personally getting tired of Baltimore City and PG county dictating who will be elected.
seems that all the rest of the counties are good for is sending the minority counties money.
Its time that the rest of the state gets some say also.
I bet if something like this happened, there would be no democrats left in the state offices to screw things up.
Im personally getting tired of Baltimore City and PG county dictating who will be elected.
seems that all the rest of the counties are good for is sending the minority counties money.
Its time that the rest of the state gets some say also.
I bet if something like this happened, there would be no democrats left in the state offices to screw things up.
