Beto O'Rourke wants a proportional electoral college (Is it a good idea?)


#21

I agree…more states should be in play.

And i dont do that


#22

Instead of complaining about the electoral college, dems should be focusing on not losing the midwest to Donald trump and not nominating ■■■■ candidates


#23

I’m opposed to electoral college votes awarded by congressional district results. It will massively increase the incentive to gerrymander and will become less proportional over time.


#24

Who cares what the motivation is? Look at the merits of the idea and judge based on that.

Even if Hilary would have won under the new rules… I doesn’t make it a bad idea.


#25

Perhaps it is because the will of the people has been thwarted multiple times in our lifetime.

Eventually the system will lose the consent of the governed.

This, too, is an outcome any American would abhor.


#26

Which is why the EC should be eliminated.


#27

That why you have to remove gerrymandering on both sides…there is zero reason why we can’t have a balance.


#28

It would mean a longer general election campaign season. That’s my only problem with it.


#29

So in other words water down the campaign process, don’t give people an opportunity to learn about candidates?


#30

Its fair trade off to me…lots of states are just written off…they shouldnt be…except utah…


#31

Because California is deep blue I have never had the opportunity to cast a vote for President that mattered. Of course, a bunch of people probably think that’s for the best.


#32

Of course we should remove gerrymandering.

Having Presidential elections based on the results of votes of congressional districts will make it harder to achieve that end and it will reward states that don’t give a ■■■■ about rules or fairness.

Imagine the first Oresidential election where someone wins by virtue of a couple of states or a single state whose electors get awarded out of proportion to the overall vote.

Whatever part secured that will be rewarded immensely and the resentment that is trying to be addressed will actually be exacerbated.


#33

One could read the candidates policy positions if they choose. How many months does that take?

I think that is a much better way to learn about where the candidates stand then stupid commercials 24/7.

I also think two or three months is long enough to figure it out.

We are in perpetual campaign mode in this country. It’s a turn off.

I think we would have much greater voter participation if the campaign season was significantly reduced.


#34

I am a Republican in NY, so my vote for President doesn’t really count either. That’s why I am thinking that proportionality would only increase voter turnout, and focus candidates to campaign in more liberal areas of Texas or Tennessee, and more conservative areas of NY and California.

The only drawback is more states being in play, means we need a longer general election campaign. Normally, they last at most 4 months. The duration between the GOP convention and the November election is about two months.

Perhaps that would mean, the general election/s would start in December before Hanukkah, and the electors would vote in early January.

With the increase in social media and lack of horse of buggies, I think the change will not be as painful.


#35

I’m not certain having more states in play necessarily results in a longer general election campaign. Unless the parties choose to move their Primaries earlier, the general election campaign will begin after the Primaries end as always. As you point out, the need for the politician to spend days travelling is over. I feel the need for an earlier timescale for the Primaries would be nonexistent.

Therefore, there really is no drawback for having more states, and therefore voters from different states, in play for the general election. The counterargument is even worse. Instead of 4-5 states choosing the President, I highly doubt anyone would be comfortable narrowing that down to just 1 state being determinant of who the President should be.


#36

That’s a great point.

All of the major candidates visit each state. Here in upstate NY, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders made personal visits to my area.

When it comes to the General election, the candidates only focus on the states with a tight race, as in, the people are divided over who is their guy or gal. So basically, they are re-visiting the same areas in certain parts of the country.

With more usage of social media, it’s easier for candidates to reach out.

In 1960, Richard Nixon made a pledge to visit every state during the general election. That move was heavily criticized, because he ended up campaigning in states which already wanted to vote for and against him. His 50 state + DC strategy would have been relevant, if the votes were divided proportionally.


#37

I’m in upstate NY (Cap District), too.

If we ever get to where it would be constant campaigning here like those poor people in battleground states have to endure, I might have to think seriously of becoming a hermit. :wink:


#38

Thats too much to process roght now…shutting down


#39

Mine is the 25th district, representing Monroe County.

Regardless of where we live, we will still get robo calls and ads on television.

Encouraging more to people to vote is a good thing.


#40

I don’t think those two things encourage people to go vote. I actually think those things probably depress the vote.

I drove voters to the polls in neighboring district to mine last Election Day. And we (my resistance group) wrote letters to voters and did door to door canvassing in that district, And we flipped the district. :slight_smile: