I propose a retooling of the Electoral College where, instead of a candidate receiving a number of electoral votes from each state, the states would be divided into districts, with 1 elector assigned to represent the popular vote in each district. In order to be elected in this system, a presidential candidate would have to win 270 out of 538 individual districts across the United States. Likewise, candidates for governor or other state offices would be elected by a majority of the districts in each state, in lieu of a popular vote.
3 Likes
i like the idea of this and it’s something i’ve been discussing with people. when our govt was created people were more spread out. now that things have become increasingly centralized we’re having at the state level what the founders tried to avoid federally. you can see it on every state election map. everything’s red except large cities. there’s a reason for that, whats good for urban is not usually good for rural. someone with a flat in downtown LA or NYC doesn’t need a 4x4 400hp diesel truck, but a farmer does. many more points of difference in lifestyle that are just not compatible with each others voting choices. the current system is leaving rural america without a voice in california, oregon, washington and many other states. even if eastern washington for example got 1 point to themselves, at least it’s something, where currently the entire state is run by the greater seattle area. for that matter the entire west coast is run by the major cities of the i-5 corridor. they are completely different worlds once you leave those cities.
3 Likes
You’ve got it. The states should be their own representative republics just as the country is. If you look at the electoral map for this last election, the overwhelming majority of counties are blood red. Even California, for cryin’ out loud! And yet, we’re expected to believe Harris won those states. We shouldn’t let them swamp one county with ballots and decide the votes of a whole state.
2 Likes
have to come up with a different point system and to be fair you’ll never truly get away from population having a bigger say… but if we did something like 1 point for every 100k population, that would at least give other regions a voice of some form where they currently have none.
1 Like
Not necessarily so. I’m thinking the cities - New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, Dallas, etc. - would each be represented by 1 elector, just the same as the smaller, more rural towns. Whether you have a population of 8 million or 8 thousand in your town, you are still represented by 1 vote. This way, each town, county, or region has equal representation, and a candidate could still lose the electoral vote while garnering the popular vote.
1 Like
the other half would never go for it unless they thought somehow they had an advantage. they don’t even like the current electoral because they think popular only would guarantee republican defeat forever. they might be right. also pretty sure it would take a constitutional convention to pull anything like that off. personal opinion is the current political climate would be extremely dangerous to start a con con. everything is on the chopping block and theres just way too much corruption and brainwashed masses to risk 1a and 2a getting deleted in the process. it’s just as hard to close it as it is to open it and it can take decades. last one i believe lasted over 20 years, long ago when common sense was common. idk… we’re out of easy, one size fits all solutions, now we’re down to finite, tedious, drawn out, complex issues that HAVE to be dealt with and this is one of them.
1 Like
I suppose, in the short term, we can work on implementing a national voter ID law, and other measures to ensure more secure elections.
1 Like
yup, that’s a must. if we can get election fraud in check and keep it that way that will go a long way towards a better system.
1 Like