Can we use the Electoral College do away with itself?

[c_hawkbob]

This is brilliant! I sure hope it happens.

https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/theres- ... laEGMoEi3Y

[RiverDog]

Your link appears to be broken.

[c_hawkbob]

It works for me, bur maybe it's in my cache ... here let's try it again: https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/theres- ... laEGMoEi3Y

[RiverDog]

Sorry, still no luck:

Hmmm… can't reach this pagewww.wpsdlocal6.com’s server IP address could not be found.
Try running Windows Network Diagnostics.
DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

It could cut both ways, but this would mean a state could go against it’s own popular vote just because the rest of the nation voted otherwise. It looks to me like mostly blue states getting behind this; makes sense, popular vote seems to lean blue in recent history. I wouldn’t call this brilliant.

Edit: River, the gist of the article is that state elector would cast their vote in December based on the national popular vote and not on their individual state’s results.

[c_hawkbob]

Is anybody else having that problem?

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I can use the link just fine.

So, states sign up for this pact. Once the 270 is reached, the states in the pact vote according to the national popular vote. What exactly is this accomplishing? States that aren’t decided but in the pact go ahead and vote according to national popular vote?

[c_hawkbob]

Colorado voters have decided to join a growing list of states that hope to decide a president by popular vote, the latest move in a national chess match over the way the United States elects its presidents.

Called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the agreement calls for states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, once enough states join the agreement.

So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have approved the pact, covering 196 electoral votes of the required 270 to win the presidency.

That 270 matters: The states that have approved legislation to join the compact agreed it would not take effect until the 270 threshold is reached. Once it does, those states will have the power to use their Electoral College votes to elect a winner, according to the popular vote. This uses the Electoral College to effectively phase out the Electoral College, though it would not apply to states that do not sign up.


Colorado’s Senate was the first state legislative body to try to pass the national popular vote proposal in 2006, though the legislation failed multiple times. It was ultimately signed into law last year by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, but was then was successfully challenged by Coloradans Vote, a group that gathered enough signatures to invoke a rarely used referendum to ask Colorado voters to confirm or repeal the law.

John Koza was part of that early effort and was the creator and chair of the National Popular Vote nonprofit. He is a computer scientist who is known for his work in genetics and even co-invented the scratch-off lottery ticket and has had more than a passing interest in how the U.S. presidential election operates.

“I've been interested in the quirks of the Electoral College since the ’60s,” Koza said.“Several of us got together and said maybe a state-based approach, which is what we have, would be a better way to try to get a national popular vote. So that's how the national popular vote got started.”

While the compact has gained traction in states run by Democratic governors, it has been supported by some Republicans such as former RNC chair Michael Steele.

The following states have already enacted the proposal:

California Enacted
Colorado Enacted
Connecticut Enacted
Delaware Enacted
District of Columbia Enacted
Hawaii Enacted
Illinois Enacted
Maryland Enacted
Massachusetts Enacted
New Jersey Enacted
New Mexico Enacted
New York Enacted
Oregon Enacted
Rhode Island Enacted
Vermont Enacted
Washington Enacted

[c_hawkbob]

I can use the link just fine.

So, states sign up for this pact. Once the 270 is reached, the states in the pact vote according to the national popular vote. What exactly is this accomplishing? States that aren’t decided but in the pact go ahead and vote according to national popular vote?

If the states in the pact have the 270 electoral votes required it won't matter how the other states vote.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Does it matter now how other states vote if a candidate already has 270?

[c_hawkbob]

Does it matter now how other states vote if a candidate already has 270?

Correct. 270 is the threshold for the majority of the vote. The states not in the pact could vote their consciences but even if they all voted the other way (wouldn't happen) the election would still be won by the popular vote.

[RiverDog]

Thanks for the copy and paste.

Good luck getting the remaining 74. As Mack said, those are all blue states. None are red or purple. And there's no guaranteeing that a state couldn't change their minds and repeal the law at some time in the future.

[mykc14]

Being a fan of the electoral college, I obviously don't like it. Overall it takes too much power away from the States. As a state why would you ever want to give up power, willingly?

[RiverDog]

Being a fan of the electoral college, I obviously don't like it. Overall it takes too much power away from the States. As a state why would you ever want to give up power, willingly?

It isn't taking power away from the states as much as it is taking power away from rural areas. The country is currently divided into 3 subsections: Urban, suburban, and rural. A strictly popular vote would concentrate all of the power in urban and suburban areas that have completely different agendas than we do in rural areas. The current set up already favors the big cities. Eliminating the electoral college would tilt the balance beam even further in their favor.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd make 3 changes to our voting system for POTUS/VP: (1) Make electoral college votes automatic. No more faithless electors. (2) Award one electoral vote per each state's Congressional district and one electoral vote for the District of Columbia. The winner of that vote would go to the candidate that receives 50+1% of the popular vote within the district. (3) Reduce the electoral college to 436 as determined above.

That way, the votes would be equally distributed, with roughly 1 vote for every 700k population, or about the size of Wyoming, Alaska, and Washington, DC. It would force candidates to campaign across the entire country rather than concentrating their efforts in a handful of battleground states. If you went by strictly a popular vote, there would be no need for a candidate to leave a 50 mile radius of an airport.

Of course, it will never happen in our lifetime as any change to the Electoral College would require a Constitutional amendment, and the way the country is currently divided, we wouldn't get 2/3's to agree on the time of day.

[Aseahawkfan]

Would be a bad idea as that would indeed lead to a Civil War. I doubt red states would accept California and New York deciding every election. Might as well split the country up now and be done with it. I will not accept the popular vote of states whose values I do not agree with because they have a larger population.

I still don't know why city folk vote for Democrats as much as they do. Maybe because cities are filled with people who rely on government assistance to survive. I don't know.

[mykc14]

It isn't taking power away from the states as much as it is taking power away from rural areas. The country is currently divided into 3 subsections: Urban, suburban, and rural. A strictly popular vote would concentrate all of the power in urban and suburban areas that have completely different agendas than we do in rural areas. The current set up already favors the big cities. Eliminating the electoral college would tilt the balance beam even further in their favor.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd make 3 changes to our voting system for POTUS/VP: (1) Make electoral college votes automatic. No more faithless electors. (2) Award one electoral vote per each state's Congressional district and one electoral vote for the District of Columbia. The winner of that vote would go to the candidate that receives 50+1% of the popular vote within the district. (3) Reduce the electoral college to 436 as determined above.

That way, the votes would be equally distributed, with roughly 1 vote for every 700k population, or about the size of Wyoming, Alaska, and Washington, DC. It would force candidates to campaign across the entire country rather than concentrating their efforts in a handful of battleground states. If you went by strictly a popular vote, there would be no need for a candidate to leave a 50 mile radius of an airport.

Of course, it will never happen in our lifetime as any change to the Electoral College would require a Constitutional amendment, and the way the country is currently divided, we wouldn't get 2/3's to agree on the time of day.

I understand that it would give power to the high population areas in our country, but it still would be reducing state power. The electoral college gives states more power than they would if it didn't exist so throwing away your votes based on the popular vote reduces that power. I do however, agree that the biggest draw back would be how much power it gives high population areas. As to your electoral idea above, I do like it but agree it probably won't ever happen. If anything this article shows that we are closer to moving in the opposite direction.

[RiverDog]

I understand that it would give power to the high population areas in our country, but it still would be reducing state power. The electoral college gives states more power than they would if it didn't exist so throwing away your votes based on the popular vote reduces that power. I do however, agree that the biggest draw back would be how much power it gives high population areas. As to your electoral idea above, I do like it but agree it probably won't ever happen. If anything this article shows that we are closer to moving in the opposite direction.

The only states that derive real power from our Presidential elections now are the battleground states. Democrats can take California and New York for granted. Why waste your time catering to them? They are either going to vote for you if you're a Democrat or against you if you are a Republican. Same with WA, OR, etc. But in Pennsylvania, Trump and Biden fought for every vote. Issues like fracking got brought out into the open.

The other thing about going by strictly popular vote is that the candidates physically aren't forced to tour the country. Although it was a primary race, the first time John Kennedy ever saw poverty up close was in West Virginia in 1960 where he was in a close fight with Hubert Humphrey for the nomination.

Like I said earlier, if we go by popular vote, a candidate won't have to venture more than 50 miles away from LAX, DFW, ORD, SEA, PDX, etc.

[Aseahawkfan]

The only states that derive real power from our Presidential elections now are the battleground states. Democrats can take California and New York for granted. Why waste your time catering to them? They are either going to vote for you if you're a Democrat or against you if you are a Republican. Same with WA, OR, etc. But in Pennsylvania, Trump and Biden fought for every vote. Issues like fracking got brought out into the open.

The other thing about going by strictly popular vote is that the candidates physically aren't forced to tour the country. Although it was a primary race, the first time John Kennedy ever saw poverty up close was in West Virginia in 1960 where he was in a close fight with Hubert Humphrey for the nomination.

Like I said earlier, if we go by popular vote, a candidate won't have to venture more than 50 miles away from LAX, DFW, ORD, SEA, PDX, etc.

Not to mention can you imagine how the rural and suburban voters would feel if they were pretty much disregarded every election? And only people in large cities get to decide everything. You talk about dividing the nation. It would probably be worse than it is now by leaps and bounds.

I know in Washington State the people in Eastern Washington and urban areas already feel Seattle and King County hold too much sway in the state. I think it would finally be the issue that united the right in a push for real violent division if the Democrats tried to push for cities and large blue states to decide everything.

[mykc14]

The only states that derive real power from our Presidential elections now are the battleground states. Democrats can take California and New York for granted. Why waste your time catering to them? They are either going to vote for you if you're a Democrat or against you if you are a Republican. Same with WA, OR, etc. But in Pennsylvania, Trump and Biden fought for every vote. Issues like fracking got brought out into the open.
Like I said earlier, if we go by popular vote, a candidate won't have to venture more than 50 miles away from LAX, DFW, ORD, SEA, PDX, etc.

I understand what you are saying and agree with you in regards to how this would cause rural people, well most areas in our country in general, to feel marginalized. Only the large population areas would matter, I understand. I'm not talking about State Power in terms of which states will get pandered to by the candidates I am talking about State Power in terms of the State Power to have a vote or multiple votes. By resigning your state to simply vote with the popular vote the State is giving up sovereignty to the populous. Using your electoral vote for who your constituents choose is a form of State Power that seems idiotic to give up freely. The electoral vote of your state should represent your state, not the nation as a whole. I have sovereignty in that I can vote for whoever I want. Our State has sovereignty in that it's votes are cast for whoever WE choose. If I gave up my vote to whatever the population wanted I would be giving up power, which is what the states are giving up...

[RiverDog]

I am talking about State Power in terms of the State Power to have a vote or multiple votes. By resigning your state to simply vote with the popular vote the State is giving up sovereignty to the populous. Using your electoral vote for who your constituents choose is a form of State Power that seems idiotic to give up freely. The electoral vote of your state should represent your state, not the nation as a whole. I have sovereignty in that I can vote for whoever I want. Our State has sovereignty in that it's votes are cast for whoever WE choose. If I gave up my vote to whatever the population wanted I would be giving up power, which is what the states are giving up...

State power resides in Congress, particularly in the Senate. That's where legislation that affects us the most will get debated. The President, on the other hand, has responsibilities that go beyond our national borders and should be representing the interests of entire country, not just localized, regional interests. That's why I favor an election system that gets rid of state lines and splits up the country into 436 roughly equal votes based on population.

Winner takes all compromises my voice. Washington is a pure blue state, controlled by the Puget Sound area. We could vote 80% or 90% for a POTUS candidate and it wouldn't make any difference if it's not in line with how the Puget Sound area feels. It's a huge issue out here. A Republican hasn't won a state wide election for over 20 years.

[RiverDog]

Not to mention can you imagine how the rural and suburban voters would feel if they were pretty much disregarded every election? And only people in large cities get to decide everything. You talk about dividing the nation. It would probably be worse than it is now by leaps and bounds.

I know in Washington State the people in Eastern Washington and urban areas already feel Seattle and King County hold too much sway in the state. I think it would finally be the issue that united the right in a push for real violent division if the Democrats tried to push for cities and large blue states to decide everything.

You don't know half of it. A Republican hasn't won a state wide election since 1996. Folks in eastern Washington are furious about attempts by Seattleites to breach the lower Snake River dams. I-1639, the gun control measure, has been resisted by 20 county sheriffs and is a flash point. There are serious calls for the eastern half of the state to break off from the west side.

If we went to a popular vote for POTUS, a situation like the one we're facing in Washington would be repeated nation wide.

[Hawktawk]

I always hear “ I don’t want California electing the president “ well.... looks like Pennsylvania did . Wtf is the difference ? One person one vote . Of course this time around it didn’t matter but just imagine a few hundred thousand votes and Trump could have won despite being beaten by 3.4 % and 5 million votes . I totally disagree with those who say it will disenfranchise voters in small states. Quite the opposite . Every citizen will have a voice . As a lifelong republican in a purple then solid blue state my presidential vote didn’t matter a bit for 4 decades. Only when my party gave me a despicable waste of oxygen as the standard bearer of America did my first ever in 4 decades since Reagan count. A blue voter in a red state has a voice and vice versa . Force politicians to compete for every vote . Frankly I’d be for national primaries too. Why should some racist yee haw in an early state decide who my choices are long before Washington votes. Or at a minimum each state should have proportional representation. Nothing infuriated and frightened me more than Trump picking off state after state with 15 and 20% of the vote . The other 80% were definitely against him just splitting their vote until it was too late .

Like impeachment and the 25th amendment our elections are broken when a Drubbed lame duck can hide in his house and tweet conspiracies and fire critical military people via tweet with more to come .

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Shouldn’t there be some accounting for people massing in urban areas will general yield like minded thinking? That’s the whole crux of it for me when people postulate that moving to a one person one vote system versus the EC is the way to go. You will flat out have urban American deciding every election. Given what seems to be the general opinion of members of this forum that the average American is incapable of seeing further than mere inches in front of their face, self-interest voting will skew heavily to urban areas. Perhaps this could be mitigated by changes in campaigning tactics, but I can’t thinking of time in recent history that election maps don’t show urban centers as blue.

[RiverDog]

I always hear “ I don’t want California electing the president “ well.... looks like Pennsylvania did . Wtf is the difference ?

The problem with the election being decided by the battleground states isn't with the electoral college itself. It's with the winner-take-all rule that 48 states use to determine their electoral vote. Get rid of winner-take-all and suddenly nearly every state in the Union, except states like Wyoming and Alaska with just one district, has districts that are in play where before they were committed to the balance of their respective state's vote.

Nebraska is one of the two states, the other one being Maine, that divides their electoral votes by Congressional district, and guess what? It is now worth it for Joe Biden to campaign in Omaha because suddenly a solid red state has a stripped look to it, and there was a very plausible scenario in this election where that one Congressional district could have determined the winner.

And it's not California that would be electing the president. As Mack pointed out, it would be urban areas. Candidates would give a rip about Humbolt County in northern California. They would devote all of their efforts to urban areas in LA, the Bay Area, and San Diego as that's where the largest concentrations of votes are.

[I-5]

I agree. I prefer what Maine and Nebraska are doing, much more representative of the voters in their states. It would enfranchise red voters in blue states like Washington, and blue voters in red states like Kentucky. I hope more states evolve to be more like Nebraska and Maine in terms of electors.

[RiverDog]

I agree. I prefer what Maine and Nebraska are doing, much more representative of the voters in their states. It would enfranchise red voters in blue states like Washington, and blue voters in red states like Kentucky. I hope more states evolve to be more like Nebraska and Maine in terms of electors.

Yep, me, too.

But I would reduce the Electoral College by two votes per state/Wash. DC. That would split up the country into 436 roughly equal voting districts, with about 700K in each district. Otherwise, states like Alaska and Wyoming would get a disproportionate advantage.

Washington state needs to consider what Maine and Nebraska has done with their electoral votes in order to prevent this:

https://libertystate.org/

[Aseahawkfan]

I was surprised by that split vote as well in Maine and Nebraska. I would be ok with that as well. Give more voice to people who differ in the state and create more need to campaign for votes.

[RiverDog]

I was surprised by that split vote as well in Maine and Nebraska. I would be ok with that as well. Give more voice to people who differ in the state and create more need to campaign for votes.

Precisely.

There's no greater example than here in eastern Washington. A Republican hasn't won a state wide election...POTUS, Governor, or Senator...in 24 years. Over the past 30 years, the Seattle area has become more and more liberal, passing legislation like I-1638, a gun control measure, and cities are openly hostile by passing resolutions like breaching the lower Snake River dams and re-introducing wolves into our forests. People in this area feel like they have no voice in matters that directly affect them, and as a result, there is a serious movement to break off from the western half of the state. I would be very surprised if similar situations didn't exist in other states. Giving us a couple electoral votes gives us at least a small voice in national politics vs. none at all.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="Aseahawkfan"

Precisely.

There's no greater example than here in eastern Washington. A Republican hasn't won a state wide election...POTUS, Governor, or Senator...in 24 years. Over the past 30 years, the Seattle area has become more and more liberal, passing legislation like I-1638, a gun control measure, and cities are openly hostile by passing resolutions like breaching the lower Snake River dams and re-introducing wolves into our forests. People in this area feel like they have no voice in matters that directly affect them, and as a result, there is a serious movement to break off from the western half of the state. I would be very surprised if similar situations didn't exist in other states. Giving us a couple electoral votes gives us at least a small voice in national politics vs. none at all.

Might want to consider tax ramifications before splitting off. We have way less revenue and way more spread out real estate . This included rural school districts that spend ten times per student what the west side does. Besides let’s ask why urban and more suburban people all the time vote blue. Cause they aren’t a bunch of red neck racist yee haws who need an arsenal to feel safe from the bogeymen . Maybe it’s us that are wrong which is why we are a minority .

Any party running Donald Trump deserves to lose by 5 million every time .

[RiverDog]

Might want to consider tax ramifications before splitting off. We have way less revenue and way more spread out real estate . This included rural school districts that spend ten times per student what the west side does.

Yep. I agree. The difference in gas tax revenue vs. what is spent in this side of the state on highway construction and maintenance is striking. There was another proposal that had eastern Washington joining with eastern Oregon and merge with Idaho. That would probably be even worse tax wise as it includes an incredible amount of unpopulated area and a lower tax base. It is for this reason I'm against splitting off from the western half.

But that wasn't the point I was making. My point is that with the growing liberalism on the west side of the state, apart from Trumpism, which had absolutely nothing to do with hot button local issues like I-1639 or dam breaching, has been causing the mostly conservative eastern half of the state to become disenfranchised and deeply resentful of the power wielded like an iron fist in the Seattle area. Polls conducted in Spokane, Yakima, and the Tri Cities show that 70-75% of respondents favor breaking off from the western half. It is an argument for not only maintaining the electoral college, it's also about doing away with winner-take-all. Just like C-bob's proposal, it wouldn't take a Constitutional amendment, simply an agreement between states.

[Hawktawk]

Yep. I agree. The difference in gas tax revenue vs. what is spent in this side of the state on highway construction and maintenance is striking. There was another proposal that had eastern Washington joining with eastern Oregon and merge with Idaho. That would probably be even worse tax wise as it includes an incredible amount of unpopulated area and a lower tax base. It is for this reason I'm against splitting off from the western half.

But that wasn't the point I was making. My point is that with the growing liberalism on the west side of the state, apart from Trumpism, which had absolutely nothing to do with hot button local issues like I-1639 or dam breaching, has been causing the mostly conservative eastern half of the state to become disenfranchised and deeply resentful of the power wielded like an iron fist in the Seattle area. Polls conducted in Spokane, Yakima, and the Tri Cities show that 70-75% of respondents favor breaking off from the western half. It is an argument for not only maintaining the electoral college, it's also about doing away with winner-take-all. Just like C-bob's proposal, it wouldn't take a Constitutional amendment, simply an agreement between states.

As I say there is no middle ground. One side expects to pay lower taxes as our debt skyrockets and Covid bites deep into state and federal coffers. They expect to be able to maintain an arsenal of their choosing with no oversight whatever never mind firearm deaths are around 35-40 K annually. They believe no woman should have the right to choose whether to spend 9 months pregnant and care for the child for life, even in cases of rape or incest, that doctors who do so should be jailed. That wearing a mask indoors and socially distancing is stupid and infringes on their rights. That cops can do no wrong and the black thugs need to stop resisting.

The other side wants socialism. They want to take your guns or pass unenforceable confusing laws regarding them. They use abortion as birth control. They would lock it down for a year and utterly destroy the economy to save the environment. That looting and rioting is protesting and cops need defunded.That there are no black thugs.

The good book says "a house divided against itself cannot stand"
We are in a heap of trouble. I hope Joe Biden can find a center. I think he's his own man. He didn't wait 47 years to get here to be a puppet. This partisan warfare is immoral at this time in our history and we are a nation in deep decline.

[RiverDog]

As I say there is no middle ground. One side expects to pay lower taxes as our debt skyrockets and Covid bites deep into state and federal coffers. They expect to be able to maintain an arsenal of their choosing with no oversight whatever never mind firearm deaths are around 35-40 K annually. They believe no woman should have the right to choose whether to spend 9 months pregnant and care for the child for life, even in cases of rape or incest, that doctors who do so should be jailed. That wearing a mask indoors and socially distancing is stupid and infringes on their rights. That cops can do no wrong and the black thugs need to stop resisting.

I am not arguing the merits of either side's political case. The fact is that a very sharp divide in this state does exist, and it's heavily dominated by the more populated Puget Sound area. Getting rid of winner-take-all and dividing the state's electoral votes by Congressional district would give eastern Washington 2 electoral votes and would put us back on the map. Candidates would start campaigning in Spokane and the Yakima Valley, as well as other regions of the state. They would no longer write off/take for granted all 12 electoral votes.

[Aseahawkfan]

As I say there is no middle ground. One side expects to pay lower taxes as our debt skyrockets and Covid bites deep into state and federal coffers. They expect to be able to maintain an arsenal of their choosing with no oversight whatever never mind firearm deaths are around 35-40 K annually. They believe no woman should have the right to choose whether to spend 9 months pregnant and care for the child for life, even in cases of rape or incest, that doctors who do so should be jailed. That wearing a mask indoors and socially distancing is stupid and infringes on their rights. That cops can do no wrong and the black thugs need to stop resisting.

The other side wants socialism. They want to take your guns or pass unenforceable confusing laws regarding them. They use abortion as birth control. They would lock it down for a year and utterly destroy the economy to save the environment. That looting and rioting is protesting and cops need defunded.That there are no black thugs.

The good book says "a house divided against itself cannot stand"
We are in a heap of trouble. I hope Joe Biden can find a center. I think he's his own man. He didn't wait 47 years to get here to be a puppet. This partisan warfare is immoral at this time in our history and we are a nation in deep decline.

A lot of this stuff could be settled if people didn't believe so many insane ideas. I don't know if you've ever watched Star Trek, but we need to become more like Vulcans.

[I-5]

I am not arguing the merits of either side's political case. The fact is that a very sharp divide in this state does exist, and it's heavily dominated by the more populated Puget Sound area. Getting rid of winner-take-all and dividing the state's electoral votes by Congressional district would give eastern Washington 2 electoral votes and would put us back on the map. Candidates would start campaigning in Spokane and the Yakima Valley, as well as other regions of the state. They would no longer write off/take for granted all 12 electoral votes.

For sure it would put Washington a bit more in play, and a lot of other states in play, like Texas, Florida, and Ohio. It would completely change the electoral map strategy - I'd be for it.

[RiverDog]

I am not arguing the merits of either side's political case. The fact is that a very sharp divide in this state does exist, and it's heavily dominated by the more populated Puget Sound area. Getting rid of winner-take-all and dividing the state's electoral votes by Congressional district would give eastern Washington 2 electoral votes and would put us back on the map. Candidates would start campaigning in Spokane and the Yakima Valley, as well as other regions of the state. They would no longer write off/take for granted all 12 electoral votes.

For sure it would put Washington a bit more in play, and a lot of other states in play, like Texas, Florida, and Ohio. It would completely change the electoral map strategy - I'd be for it.

With the possible exception of Texas, those 3 states aren't good examples. Both candidates devoted quite a bit of time in those states during this campaign. And not every state would benefit from getting rid of winner-take-all. Wyoming and the Dakotas, for example, won't change much. But the overall region that those states fall into would benefit as you're essentially getting rid of state lines.

And like I said earlier, I'd take two electoral votes away from all 50 states and DC. Then you'd have as perfect of a balance between population and electoral votes as can be devised short of going to a strictly popular vote.

[I-5]

With the possible exception of Texas, those 3 states (OH and FL being the other two) aren't good examples. Both candidates devoted quite a bit of time in those states during this campaign.

Exactly, and only one candidate got all the electoral votes. If those states were broken down the way Maine and Nebraska's electoral votes were, what would have happened?

[RiverDog]

With the possible exception of Texas, those 3 states (OH and FL being the other two) aren't good examples. Both candidates devoted quite a bit of time in those states during this campaign.

Exactly, and only one candidate got all the electoral votes. If those states were broken down the way Maine and Nebraska's electoral votes were, what would have happened?

They wouldn't have spent anymore time within the state than they did this campaign, especially in the case of Florida. But it would have had the effect of forcing them to spread the wealth...if you want to call it that...more evenly around the state, especially in a state as geographically large as Texas is.

[Hawktawk]

I think its time to re-evaluate the wisdom of the electoral college based on the act of sedition being attempted by this psychopath. He's literally used the star appeal of the oval office to actually make some state officials wobbly in their clear commitment to honor the will of the voters and not appoint faithless electors.

One person one vote. It would have been called by wednesday night. Bidens up 6 million plus votes and If Trump pulls this off in 3 states we live under a psycho in apartheid for who knows how long.

Yeah its a long shot. Everything that gave us Trump has been a long shot though and here he is.

[mykc14]

I think its time to re-evaluate the wisdom of the electoral college based on the act of sedition being attempted by this psychopath. He's literally used the star appeal of the oval office to actually make some state officials wobbly in their clear commitment to honor the will of the voters and not appoint faithless electors.

One person one vote. It would have been called by wednesday night. Bidens up 6 million plus votes and If Trump pulls this off in 3 states we live under a psycho in apartheid for who knows how long.

Yeah its a long shot. Everything that gave us Trump has been a long shot though and here he is.

How would it be any different? The results are the same either way: Biden won. Do you think if he would have won by popular vote Trump would have conceded? I imagine it would actually be worse because he would then be challenging the vote in every state. If he can claim 100’s of thousands of votes were ‘changed’ or manufactured in 6 states he can claim its over 6 million across the country. I wouldn’t be surprised if he would claim right now that he won the popular vote- if not for the ‘alleged’ voter fraud. The elector college is not the issue in this election.

[RiverDog]

I think its time to re-evaluate the wisdom of the electoral college based on the act of sedition being attempted by this psychopath. He's literally used the star appeal of the oval office to actually make some state officials wobbly in their clear commitment to honor the will of the voters and not appoint faithless electors.

One person one vote. It would have been called by wednesday night. Bidens up 6 million plus votes and If Trump pulls this off in 3 states we live under a psycho in apartheid for who knows how long.

Yeah its a long shot. Everything that gave us Trump has been a long shot though and here he is.

How would it be any different? The results are the same either way: Biden won. Do you think if he would have won by popular vote Trump would have conceded? I imagine it would actually be worse because he would then be challenging the vote in every state. If he can claim 100’s of thousands of votes were ‘changed’ or manufactured in 6 states he can claim its over 6 million across the country. I wouldn’t be surprised if he would claim right now that he won the popular vote- if not for the ‘alleged’ voter fraud. The elector college is not the issue in this election.

You're right, the Electoral College is not an issue in this election. Biden has 36 electoral votes above what is necessary to win the election. But it does highlight the biggest problem with the Electoral College, and that's the faithless electors. The states need to pass laws that would make their electoral votes automatic, that electors are not authorized to cast their votes in any manner other than that dictated to them by the results of a certified election. SCOTUS has already affirmed that the states have the authority to pass such a law.