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


#41

Under the first method, Romney would have won the 2012 Presidential election. Romney won in about 18 more Congressional districts than Obama while he got nearly 5 million less votes than Obama nationwide. I would rather get rid of the Electoral College completely, and go to a National popular vote.


#42

I don’t believe it! After all these years!

:heart:


#43

I understood that. Your first explanation I did not understand. If you ment the same thing then I understand.

I am for proportion because with districts they will just gerrymander them or add districts in states who vote heavily one way so they get more ec votes.


#44

What do you think of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact happening? 12 states and D.C have signed on, making it about 181 electoral college votes.

If you don’t know what it is, here is the basics:

  • Whichever candidate wins the national popular votes, wins all of the electoral college votes for the agreement upon states. Lets say for example, Clinton and Trump are running for President again in 2020. Clinton wins the state of NY and loses the popular vote. Trump ends up winning the national popular vote, therefore he would win all of NYs electoral college votes.

  • The agreement would only kick in, if they get enough states to reach the 270 threshold. They are currently 89 electoral college votes short of reaching their goal.


#45

I’d prefer proportional distribution of electoral votes than the winner-takes-all NPVIC.

Proportional distribution would allow for third parties.


#46

It’s not happening, better chance of proving the tooth fairy is real.


#47

You do realize that NPVIC has 12 states and D.C already signed on, for a grand total of 181 electoral college votes. They need 89 more to reach their goal.


#48

I think it would make things messy


#49

How so?

I am opposed to it btw. NY should not have signed on. They should instead agree to divide up their electoral college votes proportionally.


#50

Well, screw that dork.


#51

It would just confuse people


#52

Chuck Todd (Meet the Press) shared an observation/idea on this morning’s show.

He pointed out that Wyoming, the least populated state, has 3 EC votes and less than 600K population. That’s less than 200K residents per EC vote. A state like California has over 700k per EC vote.

He suggested that if the EC was based on a population formula that gave equal representation (using Wyoming as a baseline) we would have more than 1700 EC votes but everyone would be represented equally…

Trump would have won under this plan.


#53

The unbalance has everything to do with its conceptual design: The smaller the state, the higher the vote per capita.


#54

As long as redrawing districts is used as a method to ensure that one party prevails over another, the idea of a proportional electoral college is a nonstarter.


#55

Yep. Liberals won’t touch Maryland.


#56

That is only true if those votes were based on districts. That is why I said it should be based off the total votes for the state, no districts. 60% of the popular vote get 60% of EC votes, the difficult part is what to do with rounding up or down.


#57

Whether its the “Cheech & Chong” state of Colorado or “Looney Beto,” the Electoral College will remain in place. We can surely vote for a Constitutional Convention, and see if you could change it to a popular vote, which is practically what we have today, or do as Ginsburg (She Alive?)said and shape our Constitution after South Africa’s, where right this moment native tribes are chopping up white farmers, and giving their land to the populous.
I would not be against a Convention as it would be a great opportunity to finally do away with murder within the womb, as that would be the end of abortion and no judge could call it unconstitutional.
Yeah, let us start the process.