Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Electoral College system?

daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:28:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).

And, we're adding DC because.......?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:29:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).

I don't understand your 2nd alternative proposal. Would you give a clearer example please?
#FeeltheFreezerBern
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:31:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:28:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).

And, we're adding DC because.......?

Because it is an Electoral entity in the election.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:29:39 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).

I don't understand your 2nd alternative proposal. Would you give a clearer example please?

Like the current system, whoever gets the most votes in a state gets all the electoral points for that state. However, whoever wins the national popular vote, would win 51 electoral votes on top of whatever they win from their states.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:34:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:31:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:28:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).

And, we're adding DC because.......?

Because it is an Electoral entity in the election.

It is?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:35:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:34:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:29:39 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).

I don't understand your 2nd alternative proposal. Would you give a clearer example please?

Like the current system, whoever gets the most votes in a state gets all the electoral points for that state. However, whoever wins the national popular vote, would win 51 electoral votes on top of whatever they win from their states.

Interesting...
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:35:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

It would be mostly. Of the 535 potential electoral votes, 435 come from the districts (over 80%)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:36:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:34:14 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:31:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:28:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:27:02 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 6:57:17 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
I am proposing a change to the electoral college system, and I'm not sure if it's unique or not.

I think the 2 electoral votes representing the US senators from each state should be Winner-Take-All from the popular vote of the entire state. The rest should be won by popular vote in each congressional district.

Let's take a state, let's say, Florida, with its 29 electoral votes. Whoever has the most votes overall in Florida should get 2 of the 29 electoral votes from Florida. The 27 congressional districts should have 1 electoral vote each. Whoever has the most votes in a congressional district should get that congressional district's electoral vote.

So what do you think of this system?

Because governors like to redistrict the districts for political reasons (see 2010)

How about either going straight to a popular vote, or simple add popular vote as something to add to the electoral. Like say, all states maintain their points, but whoever wins the popular vote gets 51 electoral points (1 point for each state and DC).

And, we're adding DC because.......?

Because it is an Electoral entity in the election.

It is?

Yeah, it is worth 3 electoral points.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:37:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

True, but for most states, especially the large ones, redistricting would be a nightmare. If you watched the election on CNN, they called that the Republicans would retain control of the house VERY early. This is because there were very few (relatively) seats that were tossups because most were gerrymandered to one party or the other
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:37:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:35:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

It would be mostly. Of the 535 potential electoral votes, 435 come from the districts (over 80%)

Correction, there are 538 electoral votes, and 436 come from districts. You left out DC.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:39:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:37:35 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:35:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

It would be mostly. Of the 535 potential electoral votes, 435 come from the districts (over 80%)

Correction, there are 538 electoral votes, and 436 come from districts. You left out DC.

Would DC retain its EC in the new system? They don't have any senators or house members.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:39:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:39:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:37:35 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:35:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

It would be mostly. Of the 535 potential electoral votes, 435 come from the districts (over 80%)

Correction, there are 538 electoral votes, and 436 come from districts. You left out DC.

Would DC retain its EC in the new system? They don't have any senators or house members.

Or do they? I'm drawing a blank.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:39:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:37:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

True, but for most states, especially the large ones, redistricting would be a nightmare. If you watched the election on CNN, they called that the Republicans would retain control of the house VERY early. This is because there were very few (relatively) seats that were tossups because most were gerrymandered to one party or the other

This is all true, but districts are zoned via population, for the most part. And the people choose their governor, so they can control, in a sense, how districts are zoned because of their gubernatorial vote. Power to the people.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:40:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:39:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:39:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:37:35 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:35:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

It would be mostly. Of the 535 potential electoral votes, 435 come from the districts (over 80%)

Correction, there are 538 electoral votes, and 436 come from districts. You left out DC.

Would DC retain its EC in the new system? They don't have any senators or house members.

Or do they? I'm drawing a blank.

They have non voting delegates
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:40:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:39:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:37:35 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:35:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

It would be mostly. Of the 535 potential electoral votes, 435 come from the districts (over 80%)

Correction, there are 538 electoral votes, and 436 come from districts. You left out DC.

Would DC retain its EC in the new system? They don't have any senators or house members.

I would include DC. I think they do have senators and a house member.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:42:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:40:52 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:39:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:37:35 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:35:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

It would be mostly. Of the 535 potential electoral votes, 435 come from the districts (over 80%)

Correction, there are 538 electoral votes, and 436 come from districts. You left out DC.

Would DC retain its EC in the new system? They don't have any senators or house members.

I would include DC. I think they do have senators and a house member.

Wait, no they don't.

I would still include DC in the system, as it has 3 electoral votes, so it would remain winner-take-all, as it is now.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:50:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:39:47 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:37:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

True, but for most states, especially the large ones, redistricting would be a nightmare. If you watched the election on CNN, they called that the Republicans would retain control of the house VERY early. This is because there were very few (relatively) seats that were tossups because most were gerrymandered to one party or the other

This is all true, but districts are zoned via population, for the most part. And the people choose their governor, so they can control, in a sense, how districts are zoned because of their gubernatorial vote. Power to the people.

Hey, you know what gives more power to the people? popular vote.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:54:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:50:57 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:39:47 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:37:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:33:21 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:30:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
I used to support this idea, but gerrymandering is already a problem in the US, and now we want to hand the electoral college to the districts? ehhh....

It wouldn't be exactly all power to districts. The two senate votes from each state are winner-take-all for the state, and states that have 3 electoral votes essentially become fully winner-take-all.

True, but for most states, especially the large ones, redistricting would be a nightmare. If you watched the election on CNN, they called that the Republicans would retain control of the house VERY early. This is because there were very few (relatively) seats that were tossups because most were gerrymandered to one party or the other

This is all true, but districts are zoned via population, for the most part. And the people choose their governor, so they can control, in a sense, how districts are zoned because of their gubernatorial vote. Power to the people.

Hey, you know what gives more power to the people? popular vote.

Not to people who live in small states, who have a population less than 1,000,000.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:57:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Popular vote gives all the power to big cities and population centers, and eliminates the need to campaign in lower pop states.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 10:28:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Love it! Landmass = republicans win
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mr_Anon
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 11:07:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 10:28:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Love it! Landmass = republicans win

Actually, general consensus amongst statisticians is that the electoral college hurt Romney. Obama won by only 3 percentage points, while securing an electoral landslide. If you kept up with Nate Silver, you'd see that Obama's chances of victory held high even as he tanked in national polls, because he had legendary ground game in battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. I also remember on election night where Romney held a lead in the popular vote long after the election was called for Obama.
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 11:39:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 10:28:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Love it! Landmass = republicans win

No, Congressional Districts doesn't exactly work for Republicans, as, let's say, county wins. Congressional Districts are zoned based on population, so heavily populate areas would get a lot of congressional districts, which is Democratic High-Ground, while rural areas take more land to get electoral votes because of their low population, and the Republicans' strength is in rural areas, so, it is balanced.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 11:40:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 11:07:09 PM, Mr_Anon wrote:
At 11/18/2012 10:28:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Love it! Landmass = republicans win

Actually, general consensus amongst statisticians is that the electoral college hurt Romney. Obama won by only 3 percentage points, while securing an electoral landslide. If you kept up with Nate Silver, you'd see that Obama's chances of victory held high even as he tanked in national polls, because he had legendary ground game in battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. I also remember on election night where Romney held a lead in the popular vote long after the election was called for Obama.

Popular vote would force candidates to campaign all over the country, not just Ohio.
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 11:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 11:40:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/18/2012 11:07:09 PM, Mr_Anon wrote:
At 11/18/2012 10:28:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Love it! Landmass = republicans win

Actually, general consensus amongst statisticians is that the electoral college hurt Romney. Obama won by only 3 percentage points, while securing an electoral landslide. If you kept up with Nate Silver, you'd see that Obama's chances of victory held high even as he tanked in national polls, because he had legendary ground game in battlegrounds like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. I also remember on election night where Romney held a lead in the popular vote long after the election was called for Obama.

Popular vote would force candidates to campaign all over the country, not just Ohio.

Popular vote would do the exact opposite. The candidates could just focus on hugely populated like New York and California without having to focus on small states.
#FeeltheFreezerBern