Do you think the current electoral college is fair?
Why does CA get apportioned 55 electoral votes?
The current electoral apportionment is based on the census taken every 10 years as dictated by our Constitution. However, I don't think the census is an accurate count of the people of this country. For one, it includes undocumented immigrants which we don't even have a good estimate of how many that are here. Some estimates are as high as 20 million???
Here is what I have an issue with. If only citizens are allowed to vote, why are electoral votes not based on the population of citizens only?
It would not be a problem if the number of undocumented is low. However, if that number is high, it distorts the distribution and apportionment of electoral counts as we see with California and a few other border states.
Therefore, at election time, the net effect is that we end up with the potential results that we see in recent elections. The results are distorted because of the electoral count.
Imagine if the electoral map is based on citizens only. That will change the apportionment and produce a more fair election of both electoral and popular count.
What do you think?
To answer the obvious question: I would like to keep the electoral college. It does give smaller states a role in the elections. As for CA, it is so populous that I don't think the undocumented make that much of a difference.
But Jack, take heart. CA is regulating itself out of population and business, which means its significance will eventually drop. May take a few years. They have created a system of very rich and working poor. Middle class families are fleeing. I can see it here in the Seattle area as well. The Seattle Times did a whole feature on families moving to Texas from my area. It has become a city of upper middle/rich while working families are forced further out. Liberal states have two classes now: the investor class and the servant class.
So count me in on the Electoral College. Note, I am not a Trump supporter.
I hear you. I don't want to get rid of the electoral college, just to change how they are apportioned. If that is corrected, I think you will see a more competitive election and perhaps a better corollation between electoral count and popular vote count.
We now have the technology to do a reasonable popular vote. If that's what you want - electors assigned strictly on the basis of population - why not just do away with it?
The reason we don't want a strict popular vote is to avoid one or a few states dominate elections. The electoral college was designed to give smaller populated states some advantage. If we count strictly by popular vote, the candidates,will only campaign in a few large states like Calif. Texas and NY and they could win without states like Rhode Island and North Dakoda...
?? But if electors are assigned solely on the population of the states, isn't that the same as a popular vote? I understood that that was what you are proposing.
As far as I'm concerned, candidates could be sequestered away from any human contact except the media. All the rallies and such are nothing more than a method of gaining votes without ever giving out any hard information on issues or beliefs. They are a massive "feel good" get together wherein fans slap each on the back and cheer themselves on without regard to the actual stance of their chose candidate.
You misunderstand the genius of the electoral college. It is not the same as relying solely on popular votes. It is a way to divide the votes among various states, large and small. The aportioning of electoral votes will allow bigger population states to get larger numbers of votes. However, the small states will also have the same apportionment based on their population. If all else being equal, the candidates with the majority of the popular vote should get the majority of the electoral votes. However, lets say you have an extreme case where one state (for argument sake, like CA) that has a large population and 80% voted for a candidate over the other. They still only get the 50% of the electoral votes. In this scenario, it is possible for some candidate to win the electoral votes by a small margin and yet loose the popular vote. ( that is they win by 51% in most states, but looses by 20/80% in a large state.)
This was designed on purpose by the Founders so that a few states cannot dominate the election. They were ingenious in coming up with this compromise.
"It does give smaller states a role in the elections." People keep saying this, but I don't see how. Candidates spend their time in the states with the most electors. How is that any more fair to small states than just having a popular vote?
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for Trump's. The electoral college must go. It is outdated and was for a younger...
by ptosis 6 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be required." - https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … e/GZQtFSPVCheck out...
by Faith Reaper 23 months ago
I may be a bit naive on this topic, but I believe that my vote should count. I understand the history and all, but I still think one's vote should count, and the candidate who receives the most votes should win. What are your thoughts. Please help me to understand why the...
by tngolfplayer 7 years ago
Should the USA go to popular vote instead of the electoral college?
by ptosis 2 years ago
Do you believe the Presidential Election is rigged? Is the Electoral college system rigged? ‘More people are discovering that the system is all rigged and voting is just pacification,’ three-time presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul argued during an interview with RT America. Paul warned that...
by Credence2 5 years ago
excerpt from a recent article"After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|