POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

[CLS]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

You'd have to remove the gerrymander for that to work.

No, I think you misunderstand due to some sloppiness in how I described the system. The proportional votes would be based on the vote of the entire state. Suppose a state has ten electoral votes, and candidate A wins statewide 50.1% to 49.9%. I'm suggesting that candidate A would get the two electoral votes that every state has plus 50.1% of the remaining eight votes that it has as a result of its population. So candidate A would get 2+4=6 EVs and candidate B would get 4 EVs.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

meh, the small states already get a disproportionate representation in the Senate, I'd be okay with going to a straight popular vote for president (and I live in a small state)

Without looking it up I imagine NY and CA are about as diverse as it gets.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Still, I think the small pop states will always want to block it. They've got their cake with their over-representation, and will never willingly give it up.

Where's the old saw about two wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner fit into this?

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Without looking it up I imagine NY and CA are about as diverse as it gets.

Yep. CA especially: that whole interior valley is white bread derp heaven -- they're so diverse they even include areas with zero diversity!

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

If anything is going to get "fixed," let's get rid of the gerrymandering of congressional districts.
https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/...congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/

An easy solution would be to make all US House reps elected "at large" in their States.
CA would still get 53 (based on population) but there'd be no "districts".
I'm not sure what all the pluses and minuses would be however.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Where's the old saw about two wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner fit into this?

That's a different problem, solved by having minority rights, and checks and balances. But deciding elections based on popular sovereignty is the best plan anybody's come up with yet.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

That's a different problem, solved by having minority rights, and checks and balances. But deciding elections based on popular sovereignty is the best plan anybody's come up with yet.

Aren't CA and NY the wolves and MT the sheep*?


*Montana and sheep jokes are mandatory fare.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

An easy solution would be to make all US House reps elected "at large" in their States.
CA would still get 53 (based on population) but there'd be no "districts".
I'm not sure what all the pluses and minuses would be however.

So every race is a state-wide election? Then you'd get problems like SC, 40% black, electing a 100% white delegation.

How about this: for a state with n Members, have one election where the top n vote-getters are elected? For even more fun, have the 1st and 2nd place finishers be the Senators.

CA would be fun, they have 55 EV, so the guy who finishes 55th (with maybe a few thousand votes) is in the House.

You could only do that with 100% public financing of elections, since in large states money would essentially buy seats in perpetuity (not that it doesn't now).

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Then you'd get problems like SC, 40% black, electing a 100% white delegation.

Based on ... ?

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Aren't CA and NY the wolves and MT the sheep*?


*Montana and sheep jokes are mandatory fare.

Yeah, but now with the over-representation of small states, and the balance of payments from blue to red states, you have the ants with < 10 EV eating the large cash cow states alive.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

How about this: for a state with n Members, have one election where the top n vote-getters are elected? For even more fun, have the 1st and 2nd place finishers be the Senators.

Needs tweeking because of the staggering of six-year terms of Senators.
In years where a Senate seat is up for vote, your plan (top vote getter is Senator, then Reps).

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Based on ... ?

10 statewide elections. The majority wins all 10. Whereas if you have 10 regional elections, each region returns its own Member. That argument is all over the Federalist Papers.

For white/black substitute D/R or city/rural or whatever. This was discussed in a famous SCOTUS case which mandated the creation of minority-majority districts to give minorities some representation, which I always think is Mapp v Ohio (it isn't). unofan will know; maybe it was in GA?

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Needs tweeking because of the staggering of six-year terms of Senators.
In years where a Senate seat is up for vote, your plan (top vote getter is Senator, then Reps).

That works! Go to 3 Senators and it's even easier, since it's always a Senate election. Sitting Senators can't double up.

BTW, could a state say it was OK for somebody to simultaneously hold 2 offices (say Senate and House Member) or is that against Federal law? Could a state say it was OK to serve in both the US House and the state leg?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

10 statewide elections. The majority wins all 10. Whereas if you have 10 regional elections, each region returns its own Member. That argument is all over the Federalist Papers.

For white/black substitute D/R or city/rural or whatever. This was discussed in a famous SCOTUS case which mandated the creation of minority-majority districts to give minorities some representation, which I always think is Mapp v Ohio (it isn't). unofan will know; maybe it was in GA?

In the bold above, the words "minority-majority" could be replaced with "gerrymandered" and the sentence remain unchanged. I guess gerrymandering is here to stay.

 

[Rover]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

You guys are already blowing a gasket over Trump and the effin' guy isn't even in office yet. Relax.

Think of Trump the President as Trump the Businessman, and the people who voted for him as the people who lent him money. Now you figure out what's about to happen. So, sit back and watch him duke it out with Ayn Rand disciples and Freedom Caucus loons in his own party while life for the bozos who voted for him just gets worse. If he pursues policies that he's indicated he will (tax cuts for the rich, etc) its real easy to go back into these places 2 years from now and say "seen any of that money come your way" and "boy its a good thing you lost your health insurance so Trump could give himself a tax break".

Obviously if Trump's a competent President all bets are off, but who thinks that'll happen? American politics is littered with people who could campaign great and govern like sh it. Not to mention the inevitable recession that's going to come at some point in the next few years.

So, do the math. You're down 24 seats in the House. 24 Goopers sit in Hillary won districts including a whopping 7 in California alone. Hmm....why do I sense an opportunity there. You're also running to follow the failed governorships of Chris Christie, Paul LePage, Rick Snyder, Brownback, Scott, Walker, etc. Plus two states that Dems did well in this year (Nevada and New Mexico). This is where you mount your comeback. 1st mid-terms after Presidential elections are usually bad for incumbent party save for the 9/11 influenced 2002 contest.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

You could only do that with 100% public financing of elections......

give it up

 

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

So, do the math. You're down 24 seats in the House. 24 Goopers sit in Hillary won districts including a whopping 7 in California alone. Hmm....why do I sense an opportunity there. You're also running to follow the failed governorships of Chris Christie, Paul LePage, Rick Snyder, Brownback, Scott, Walker, etc. Plus two states that Dems did well in this year (Nevada and New Mexico). This is where you mount your comeback. 1st mid-terms after Presidential elections are usually bad for incumbent party save for the 9/11 influenced 2002 contest.

is this a 'cut and paste' from 2 months ago?!!?

 

[joecct]

An easy solution would be to make all US House reps elected "at large" in their States.
CA would still get 53 (based on population) but there'd be no "districts".
I'm not sure what all the pluses and minuses would be however.

I think that idea was struck down in the 60s by SCOTUS. Something about one man one vote.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

No, I think you misunderstand due to some sloppiness in how I described the system. The proportional votes would be based on the vote of the entire state. Suppose a state has ten electoral votes, and candidate A wins statewide 50.1% to 49.9%. I'm suggesting that candidate A would get the two electoral votes that every state has plus 50.1% of the remaining eight votes that it has as a result of its population. So candidate A would get 2+4=6 EVs and candidate B would get 4 EVs.

That has always been how I thought it would be best. You would need to end gerrymandering though...

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

That has always been how I thought it would be best. You would need to end gerrymandering though...

I don't understand how this would be "best." It preserves the anti-democratic over-representation of small states, which is bad. And it takes popular vote and introduces whole number rounding error, which is bad.

Seems like a terrible system that solves no issues. If you like the EV system, just keep it the way it is. If you don't, ditch it entirely and use the pop vote.