Electorial college

Help Support CattleToday:

Cross-7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
12
Location
SW OK
I'm not wanting to cross the line into politics but ...
California has 55 electoral votes
You could win the entire Midwest and still not tally 55 votes.
Texas goes blue along with the other states that traditionally vote blue the rest of the nations votes will not matter
 
It;s all based on population from the last census. x number of electoral votes for xx number of population. All but a couple of states are winner take all. proportioned to the percentage of the vote would be better in my humble opinion.
 
Excuse the meme part of this photo. It shows a county by county break down of how the election really went. You have people in large cities, and the poorest parts of the country voting blue. Rural America, not so much.
 
Bigfoot":go3o2upn said:
Excuse the meme part of this photo. It shows a county by county break down of how the election really went. You have people in large cities, and the poorest parts of the country voting blue. Rural America, not so much.

It's sad Bigfoot but we may be the land majority but not the vote majority. Living in too close proximity to others messes with your brain in a bad way!! It's often this way even in state politics (big city vs rural voters the latter who have much less say,)
 
If a candidate carries New York, Florida, and California they've got 113 votes right there.
 
As I read, there was big disagreement in Constitutional Congress because the small populational states didn't want to be dominated by the big states. So, after considerable debate they agreed on electoral college.
I think it's still useful. With a straight popular vote candidates would go to NYC, Chi and LA. And nowhere else. I realize the EC advantage is still with the population centers, but...
 
TennesseeTuxedo":1xvhibnt said:
What about distributing the electoral votes proportionally like they do in Nebraska?

I've always thought that was a good because everyone that voted has a say. But I've never done the math, so I can't say that I'd like it.
 
Cross-7":208quve1 said:
I'm not wanting to cross the line into politics but ...
California has 55 electoral votes
You could win the entire Midwest and still not tally 55 votes.
Texas goes blue along with the other states that traditionally vote blue the rest of the nations votes will not matter
The electoral college should have to vote as the district it represents portionial as someone else said that actually represents the electorate in the fairest way. The major cities couldn't swing an entire state like Nevada. Politicians would have to campaign to the entire country not just the cities. The rural vote and the union worker crossing over out voted the few select counties.
 
Caustic Burno":g872004n said:
Cross-7":g872004n said:
I'm not wanting to cross the line into politics but ...
California has 55 electoral votes
You could win the entire Midwest and still not tally 55 votes.
Texas goes blue along with the other states that traditionally vote blue the rest of the nations votes will not matter
The electoral college should have to vote as the district it represents portionial as someone else said that actually represents the electorate in the fairest way. The major cities couldn't swing an entire state like Nevada. Politicians would have to campaign to the entire country not just the cities. The rural vote and the union worker crossing over out voted the few select counties.
/\ better than the current arrangement for sure.
 
RanchMan90":228xkp4s said:
Oklahoma kept the blue out as well, did last time too. This is the first time my vote counted :)
Third election in a row they've done that I believe. Way to go Okies. :clap: :clap:
 
Caustic Burno":156f3h97 said:
The electoral college should have to vote as the district it represents portionial as someone else said that actually represents the electorate in the fairest way. The major cities couldn't swing an entire state like Nevada. Politicians would have to campaign to the entire country not just the cities. The rural vote and the union worker crossing over out voted the few select counties.

This makes sense.
 
The vote/system is a little antiquated and could use some sort of tweak. Seems the young guns want a more trust worthy tally based on technology like finger print Id so we know our vote counted.
 
I think 15 states were blue and the rest were red.

In the state of Texas the only blue counties were in the large cities and was way closer to blue than I'm comfortable with

When Texas turns blue it's going to be very difficult for a republican to be elected
 
Read up on the requirements to vote in California .. all you need is a driver's license .. you don't register to vote .. guess who allowed illegals to have drivers license a couple years ago .. there are things all over this nation that needs to be changed.. but the electoral college isn't one of them unless u want the inner cities to decide what's good for us ..
 
Nothing at all wrong with the electoral college principle, imo far superior to popular vote.
The winner takes all concept definitely has flaws but its up to the individual states to decide how their electors are distributed. California will never split their electors because one party now has too much control, and is already dominated by the politics of the urban areas. Texas and a number of other states need to start considering it soon, before the cities are able to completely outnumber the rest of the state(s). California is now the antithesis of the intent of the electoral college.
 
The EC is somewhat flawed, but has it's merits as well.. The flaw I find is when a state has 10 EC votes and a candidate takes the state by .001%, that's not really fair there..
Going solely by popular vote, that's got issues too.. you'd only need to campaign in a couple places as has already been mentioned.
Perhaps if half the house was determined by the EC, and the other half by popular vote, there would be some balance? It's a very difficult problem
 

Latest posts

Top