A Suggested Fix
- Print print this page
- Discuss 32 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
There has been much discussion lately about how to determine our presidential election results and the Electoral College. The system needs fixing, for sure.
Here’s a suggestion and a simple, fair solution in which everyone can feel like their vote counts. Let’s take two candidates, John (Democrat) and Anne (Republican). Let’s take three states: California (blue-55 electoral votes), Texas (red-38 electoral votes), and a swing state Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes).
In California John wins the popular vote 65 to35 percent, so John gets 65 percent of 55 electoral votes, or 35, and Anne gets 35 percent of 55, or 19, which is better than nothing.
In Texas, Anne wins the popular vote 65 to 35 percent. So Anne gets 65 percent of 38, or 24, electoral votes, and John gets 35 percent, or 13 electoral votes, better than nothing. Now, in Pennsylvania, John wins 52 to 48 percent, a close race. John gets 52 percent of 20, or 10 electoral votes, and Anne gets 48 percent of 20, or 9, electoral votes, reflecting the closeness of the race.
The current all-or-nothing system is stupid. It doesn’t indicate the overall feelings of the voters in a state. Currently, the minority faction in a given state (red or blue) actually feels like their vote doesn’t or won’t count, and rightfully so.
What I have suggested encourages everyone to vote, even if their candidate will probably lose the popular vote. At least their vote can still help their candidate, he or she, a little.
I can’t think of a rational argument against this. It beats what we have now.
Note that fractions of votes have been dropped for the sake of simplicity, although they would have to be counted. If decimals scare you, multiply everything across the board by 10 or 100.
Sue Brand-Lisco
Pinehurst
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
kzowens 3 months, 2 weeks ago
The Electoral College made sense way back when. It needs to be laid to rest--not patched up. If we could vote directly for the Presiden (like we do for everybody else), the candidates would have to court the entire nation rather than focus on the states with the most electoral votes.
JimRussell44 3 months, 2 weeks ago
I agree with kzowens. Let the popular vote elect the president. Make every vote in every state count.
The_AnonymusProfit 3 months, 2 weeks ago
As usual the lack of education here is deplorable. We dont live in a democracy, the popular vote is just a meaningless tally. We live in a republic. Deal with it.
fugitiveguy 3 months, 2 weeks ago
"Make every vote in every state count."
If that was truly your aim you would support leaving things just as they are. Instead you desire a system that ensures perpetual rule by a Democrat.
DannySteen 3 months, 2 weeks ago
AP - It is not lack of education. They know what what they are doing. They just keep chipping away at The Constitution from every angle. Sooner or later they will have enough convinced to just toss it away.
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
wdd101st, I agree with your comment. But it should be noted that the concern about voters and their votes apply to the system we have been using all along. In this era of technology, we certainly should be able to obtain a fair an honest vote.
DaveyNC 3 months, 1 week ago
2nd amendment, Electoral College---do you Lefties have any other parts of the Constitution that you would like to do away with? I'm guessing it's pretty much just the parts that you don't like.
You know there is a way to do that that was provided for in the Constitution, right? Hop to it, those amendments won't pass themselves!
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
DaveyNC, tell me again what it is you have against having the vote of every person count? I understand why they did it the way they did in the 18th century. Why are we still doing it in the 21st century?
DaveyNC 3 months, 1 week ago
Jim, I just love the way that you always put words in the mouth of anyone you reply to. Inevitably, you set up a straw man. I have nothing against every vote counting. But the Presidency is really the only nationally elected office we have. All others are elected on a state or local level. If you want to see what direct voting produces in terms of government effectiveness, look no further than California with its proposition process. The result is that the state is constantly whipsawed from one extreme to the other, depending on whatever is in vogue at the moment. Whatever can gain a slight majority becomes law and a few years later it gets swung back the other way. National rule by popular whim is a ridiculous idea. You pre-suppose that your ideas are the best without the benefit of having been tested at the state level. The electoral college is one way to slow that down. It allows the Midwest to slow the coasts. It helps to prevent the tyranny of the many over the rights of the few.
I do not understand the desire of the Left to wholesale change everything Right. This. Minute. It's a very short-sighted view of things. Checks and balances are a very good thing. If you want to make changes, we have a framework for doing so. Right now our President is short-circuiting this process with a liberal usage of executive orders and regulations. It's not working so well. In case you missed it, unemployment ticked back up last month and something like ~9 million people have now dropped out of the work force since the financial crisis began. Hours worked just reached an all time low as companies begin to cut hours of employees in preparation for the full-on implementation of 0bamacare next year. This is what government by whim gives you. Because three or four people in Washington think they know what's best for us.
By the way, I really have no problems with the individual states doing whatever they want to do. Romneycare in MA? That's fine. If I decide that that is important enough to me, I'll move to MA. I simply don't believe that a giant, centralized government works well at all, nor do I understand the need for it. We need a central govt. to do those things that the states can't readily do by themselves; national defense, mediate interstate squabbles, foreign relations. Not education, or farming policy or even energy policy. Those things are better done at the state level. Let the farm states worry about farm policy, let the desert states worry about water management and so on. One size does not fit all.
Courseaire 3 months, 1 week ago
We need to adjust the system so that it's based on land acreage (how much land do you own or rent) rather than population density. This would give the rural vote a little more weight as they represent the backbone of the country.
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
DaveyNC, thanks for your comments. While they far exceeded the subject question, I was interested to hear your views. I am of the belief that certain things should not be left to the states. I think that our laws should be the same, regardless of what state you live in. I believe that children in every state should have access to the same educational opportunities and the basic curriculum should be the same for every state. Each local and state board of education can have additional studies to teach about local needs. I believe that every single vote for the President and Vice-President should count. I believe that everyone should have access to quality and reasonably priced health care. I am apposed to gerrymandering voting districts to accomplish a political outcome. I am apposed to the economic wars we have engaged in since WWII.
Themis 3 months, 1 week ago
"All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government!"
Ronald Reagan
DaveyNC 3 months, 1 week ago
Jim, you don't say why you don't think certain things should be left to the states, but I will tell you why they should be. State officials are closer to the issues and to the people they are supposed to be serving. They eat with them, they go to church with them, their kids go to school with the kids of their constituents and so they have more regular and direct contact with the issues and the people affected. They are more readily influenced by the voters as opposed to PACs having the ears of lawmakers/regulatory staff in Washington. If the enemy is an evil lobbyist, you're better off forcing the lobbyist to cover more ground rather than just hitting the cocktail party circuit in Washington.
If you think our laws should be the same, regardless of the state, you've just eliminated state and local government. I mean, if DC dictates the local traffic laws, why do we need state or local government at all? Why would you want to forfeit the "50 separate laboratories" that having independently governed states would provide? There is a great experiment going on in California right in front of our eyes as that state continues to lose people and companies hand over fist. Illinois, New York, and others are all demonstrating very nicely how not to grow. You would think our leaders would look at that and then at the successes of states like Tennessee, Texas and Florida and draw the reasonable conclusion that California, et al, are getting it wrong. But, no.
That's fine, if that's the way those states want to go. Why would you insist on imposing your will on a state that doesn't want what you're mandating? What is is about free will and free choice that you guys on the left don't like? Why do you insist on being this paternalistic State, redistributing wealth as you see fit? Why don't you see that that inevitably fails? Why do we need a government that tells us what to eat, how much water our toilets can use, what kind of cars we must drive, where we can get healthcare and who pays for it? Again, I have no problem with individual states making these decisions. I just don't understand why you want to turn those decisions to a central government.
Have you ever worked in a large company or organization? Inevitably, you receive a directive from the home office directing you to do something in a particular way, a way that really doesn't work for your location. Such organizations are clumsy and ineffective and now are largely a thing of the past. The best organizations these days are decentralized and allow the people closest to the issue to make the necessary decisions. These organizations are more nimble and responsive to their customers. Why would government be any different?
A bit of a rant there. Certainly didn't mean to go on so long, but there it is.
Yukonjohn 3 months, 1 week ago
The 10th Amendment says it best!! Oh, that's right, that is an ancient document that is irrelevant now, l forgot.
DaveyNC 3 months, 1 week ago
Jim, here's a great example of a dumb tax being proposed in that paradise of Leftism, Illinois: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/sneaker-tax-illinois-considers-a--cent-charge/article_51020583-02c9-51ce-b858-1e07054a4648.html
In and of itself, it's innocuous. The article is right, most people won't notice it. But being able to do something that doesn't stand out like a sore thumb is not a good reason to do it. Add on enough innocuous little taxes and regulations and pretty sure you have a state on the verge of financial collapse. Like, say, Illinois.
But you know what? I don't care. It won't effect me even a little. Let the people of Illinois do this to themselves. Qualitatively, this isn't terribly different than the Federal government telling me which light bulb to use. And if it comes from the Feds, I have a problem with it because it likely won't make sense.
clarabelle 3 months, 1 week ago
" Courseaire - We need to adjust the system so that it's based on land acreage (how much land do you own or rent) rather than population density. This would give the rural vote a little more weight as they represent the backbone of the country."
I sure hope this was a poor attempt at humor :)
Courseaire 3 months, 1 week ago
Not to worry CB, I am a master at poor attempts of humor (or is it attempts of poor humor), though I wouldn't oppose giving Heartland Americans a little more power as they are always out numbered by them City Folk.
dentman65 3 months, 1 week ago
I have no problem with what courseaire just said......laugh at me if you will.....but from a man who grew up on a farm: just who has a big chunk of the real control in the U.S.? That's right,,,,,,,the farmers! America's breadbasket......salt of the earth hard-working honest folks. If we can't eat, we can't argue about things or make war or politics. Just because they may not have the population does not mean they are not vital parts of the American machine with a huge voice. Overtax the farmers or make them too angry and they'll be plenty of empty bellies around including mine. Sometimes there's more at stake than smart phones and drones and Lady gaga, like food! Make it a great day!
Yukonjohn 3 months, 1 week ago
Well said Dentman!
Themis 3 months, 1 week ago
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” ― George Orwell, Animal Farm
by Themis
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
Courseaire 7 hours, 17 minutes ago We need to adjust the system so that it's based on land acreage (how much land do you own or rent) rather than population density. This would give the rural vote a little more weight as they represent the backbone of the country.
"Change the rules of the game so that I always win" is a tactic much beloved among five year olds, and Republicans. At least the five year old can be taught.
I recall reading an article that noted that there are 2.1 million farmers in the U.S., but over 10 million subscribers to the online game World of Warcraft, and suggested that maybe the WoW players should get a bigger vote. Makes as much sense as your proposal.
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
A bit more research turns up this:
There are over 285,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation (and about 2% actually live on farms). There are only about 960,000 persons claiming farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation.
So it looks like the 2.1 million figure is a bit high. But you'd give a greater share of the vote to 1% of the American people? At least it'd be a different 1% than you're backing now...
Thatcher 3 months, 1 week ago
I think Courseaire made a great point. Cheers!
clarabelle 3 months, 1 week ago
" Thatcher - I think Courseaire made a great point. Cheers!"
what a SHOCK that is!
Thatcher 3 months, 1 week ago
clarabelle-- I think Courseaire makes great points here all the time...and with humor to boot. Have you ever made a great point here at all? How about with humor? Cheers! P.S. Make fun of me all you want, but don't make fun of the funniest guy on these threads...Sir Courseaire! I've ruined computers spitting out sweet tea after reading his posts. These threads could use more like him.
Themis 3 months, 1 week ago
“...here's what I've learned - people will hurt you, but you don't have to respond - not every mean comment or cruel act deserves to be noticed ...” ― John Geddes, A Familiar Rain
samosamo 3 months, 1 week ago
Bush v Gore say no more, Gore 500000 popular votes ahead 1 electorate abstain a few lawsuits 5 supreme court justices all nominated by Republican Presidents and a brother as Govenor in the state where the election was flawed. Yes the system needs a little tweaking.
Thatcher 3 months, 1 week ago
Themis-- What a great post! I read that book last year, and it was fantastic (my wife read it first, then demanded I read it, so I did...I do what my lovely wife tells me to do). Please keep posting here! Cheers!
dentman65 3 months, 1 week ago
I agree with thatcher......good post Themis.......but who are you referring to?
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
Just to even things up, I'll counter Thatch's "I think Courseaire made a good point" comment with my own opinion: I think Dusty made several very good points in responding to Courseaire point. Score now one to one. Further, I liked John Geddes quote Themis gave us. I liked it because it applies equally to all of us posting here, as dentman65 noted.
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
DaveyNC, Because the name of our country is The United States of America, not the States of America, I believe certain things should be the same, regardless of where you live in this country. I'm not proposing eliminating state governments, I simply outlined several areas I believe should be consistent throughout the country. 1) Laws should be the same for all states because it should not be legal to do something in one state and have that same act be illegal in another. Things like local speed limits that you mention are certainly best controlled at the local level based on local conditions. But Interstate Highway speed limits should be uniform throughout the country and based on like conditions. 2) Public education should not be dictated by those who doesn't want their child exposed to this piece of information or that scientific fact. A basic curriculum that covers the key areas every student will need to be successful and survive in this world must be taught to every child in this country. Local and state subjects should certainly be added to this basic curriculum. A kid in Mississippi should receive the same basic education as the kid in Idaho. As for the system used to elect a president, the current system make some states voters more important than others. As a result, it is far easier to buy an election because the PAC's and lobbyist have a much smaller target audience.
Themis 3 months, 1 week ago
'Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field. '
Dwight D. Eisenhower