Only the total majority vote!

The constitution gives each state the power to award their electoral votes as per their state legislature directs. Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes via congressional district, the winner of the congressional districts receives that districts electoral vote with the remaining two going to the candidate who receives the most statewide vote. All other states are free to follow Maine's and Nebraska's method if they so choose.

A few years back Pennsylvania's legislature debated going to the congressional district method. But dropped the idea as awarding all of Pennsylvania's electoral votes to the winner statewide gives Pennsylvania more power in the electoral college than via the congressional method.

Had Pennsylvania gone to the congressional district method, Hillary won 8 CD's Trump 10 with Trump winning Pennsylvania popular vote, the electoral tally would have been Trump 12, Hillary 8 electoral votes instead of the winner take all 20 for Trump.

Even going by the congressional district method, Trump won 230 CD's, Hillary 205, adding the 2 electoral votes given the states for their 2 senators, Trump won 30 states, Hillary 20 along with D.C. Instead of 304-227 result with the winner take all, it would have been closer, 290-248 Trump.

 

Yes, that could be part of the problem.

But, even amongst White families with no education beyond high-school the same problem of divorce exists. Which may be exacerbated by the fact that blacks do not have postsecondary level degrees in similar percentages as do whites?

Why don't more of them go to university? Because even in state schools postsecondary schooling is too damn expensive! Percentage distribution of associate's degrees and bachelor's degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2013–14:


The difference in pay-scale that a tertiary education can make:


'Nuff said ... ?

PS: Now, pray tell, why should our Federal Discretionary Budget spend 64% of its budget on the DoD and not on a free Post-secondary Education for your youth. Don't believe that? See here.

 

Believe what you want.

I simply showed the factual evidence - Americans live shorter life-spans* because (1) of rampant obesity (40% of the population**) and (2) insufficient low-cost access to healthcare facilities (in hospitals).

From here:

*As shown here.
**As shown here.

 

Correct. It was a colossal mistake made when the country was very very young.

You seem to think that the state's Electoral College is right to give ALL ITS VOTES TO THE WINNER OF THE POPULAR-VOTE and negate all the votes that went to the "LOSER"?

That's sheer idiocy and a refutation of any "fair and honest election"! (And it is employed ONLY in the presidential vote!)

I don't want my vote for the Executive Office thrown away into the dustbin!

No, I want it counted just like the rest and sent to Congress, which then aggregates all-the-votes and publishes the result for the entire nation to see!

Is that asking for too much? Methinks not ... !

 

I expected more education from you............but, I can admit when I'm wrong.

 

Can't you think for yourself?

 

Nope tons of scholarships are available to minorities that aren't available to whites, but you have to have good grades not drop out (25%). Asian immigrants do it in record numbers even in the crappiest schools. I don't believe one race is smarter than another, it's the family unit, expectations and 2 parents in the home to reinforce it. This is just common sense.

 

Yeah right, which is why TONS&TONS of blacks are enjoying the higher paying jobs that a postsecondary degree provides.

Come off it, will you? From the NCES (Nation Center for Education Statistics) here.

 

Yeah, things are going great over there. LOL

That you do not understand why the electoral college exists probably comes from not having a confederation of separate states banding together to form a federal government to consolidate power for protection and to make trade between the states regular. The Framers were adamant that the federal government remain small and of course they are now being proven correct as power corrupts and the democrats continue to try and undermine the constitution because they are sore losers.

 

As a union of the several states, the framers gave each state a say in who would be president. The amount of each state's say would be based on population, the number of representatives plus 2 for each senator. If I could change things, which the states could do by themselves without an amendment to the constitution would be the following. Winner take all, only if a candidate receives a majority of the vote in that state. 50% plus one threshold. For the rest, if no candidate received a majority of 50% plus one, electoral votes would be awarded via whom ever wins the congressional districts. The remaining two electoral votes would go to the plurality winner of the state or to the candidate who received the most votes in that state.

Everyone who votes does has a say in who their state will vote for in the presidential elections. Each and every vote is counted and counts. As a union of the several states, it makes sense. We aren't one huge direct democracy. We have 50 small elections instead of one huge mass election for the presidency. I think one forgets that up and until the civil war a lot of states didn't bother with the popular vote, state legislatures decided who be awarded that states electoral votes.

Now I've always like the majority vote threshold, the 50% plus one vote to declare a winner. You have that in the electoral college. If no one candidates receives the majority of the electoral votes, then the election goes to the House to decide the winner. I think electing the president is important enough that whomever that is must receive a majority of the votes, 50% plus one.

However, I wouldn't oppose a three tier election system base on the popular vote.
1. If a candidate receives a majority of the popular vote nationwide, 50% plus one vote that candidate is declared the winner and becomes president. If no candidate receives a majority, 50% plus one, then go to step two. The electoral college.

2. Since no candidate received a majority of the popular vote, the candidate that has received a majority of the electoral votes, 50% plus one or the current 270 would be declared the winner. Exactly like it is today with the state legislatures still having the say in how they award their electoral votes. After all we, every voter are represented by our state legislature and as a representative republic we had a say in electing them to decide how they will award their electoral votes. If no candidate receives a majority, 50% plus one electoral vote, then go to step three.

3. The House of Representative decides who will be president as currently outlined in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1.

 

Right Wing Dork Sarcasm - that passes for intelligence?

The Electoral College is a malicious infamy that manipulates the popular-vote. It actually destroys the vote of all the majority national vote winner. Iow, its "Winner Takes All" rule on the state level can overturn the national popular-vote winner.

Nowhere else does a real democracy manipulate the popular-vote in such a manner because the national popular-vote is considered the unique instrument to elect the Executive head of government (since his/her party has a majority in the national Legislature.

Our two voting-sins are the Electoral College and Gerrymandering. No developed nation employs them to the extent that Uncle Sam does.

If you think that they are fair&honest, then you need psychiatric care ...

 

I think you're confusing a majority vote with a plurality vote in which more Americans voted against a specific candidate than vote for that candidate. None of the below were a majority vote winner. But were elected via a minority vote. Rounding off numbers.

2016 Hillary Clinton received 48% of the vote, 52% voted against her. Of course Trump received 46% of the vote with 54% voting against him. A majority of voters voted against both candidates. Both should have lost if we go by majority vote. Neither one would have been elected since more Americans voted against them than for them.

2000 Gore 49%, Bush 48%, neither received a majority, the majority of votes were cast against both candidates, 51% of Americans voted against Gore, a majority, 52% against Bush, another majority against him. Neither won a majority.

Other presidents who didn't win a majority who became minority presidents include Bill Clinton twice, 51% voted against him in 1996 and 57% of all Americans voted against him in 1992. A majority of Americans didn't want Bill Clinton twice.

56% of all Americans voted against Nixon in 1968 while 58% voted against Humphrey. 51% of all Americans voted against both JFK and Nixon in 1960. Neither received a majority.

Truman in 1948, Wilson twice, 1916 and 1912, Grover Cleveland twice, 1884 and 1892, Garfield in 1880, Lincoln in 1860, Taylor 1848, Polk 1844 all failed to receive a majority of the vote.

Every president I mentioned was a minority president where more Americans voted against them, than for them. They were all elected by a minority of all Americans, not a majority of Americans.

If we ever go to direct popular vote to decide the presidency, we need a majority of Americans voting for the declared winner. That is 50% plus one vote. We don't want a minority of voters deciding who will become president.

 

Real great.



France GDP growth....stuck in a permanent recession.

 

I will take your post under advisement. Is your argument that you believe that The Constitution of the United States should be changed? What benefit to the majority would that be over the minority? Should are Bill of Rights be revamped for the "whim of the day" mentality?

 

Yes, but how? Two voting "political manipulations" were adopted at about the same time as the Constitution was written need to changed. The two are the Electoral College and Gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court has been stalling on the second of the two above, more than likely they will forced to treat the matter sooner or later. The fact that the Electoral College (EC) is a "winner-take-all" system or presidential election-voting merits change as well. It has proven its unfairness five times in the history of the US by electing the loser of the popular-vote!

Indeed, in any "democratic republic" of merit, the election rules of representatives to office - and particularly the presidency - are the key cornerstone of any democracy. The fact that the Electoral College disallows the popular-votes of all but the majority-party winner (who is then reported to Congress as such) is unconscionable and unacceptable in a True Democracy.

Which means:
*Unlike any other other election in the country, at present it is the winner of the manipulated presidential EC-vote that gets elected. The minority-vote results are thrown away.This electoral unfairness to the popular-vote must change.
*The Supreme Court - after only a two century wait - is "thinking about" tackling Gerrymandering that was first employed by the Governor of Massachusetts in 1812. We shall see if, at least, that electoral voting manipulation is terminated.

Both need to go ...

 

Interesting.

Yes, the total vote for the presidency is what should count. But, as I never tire of saying, presently that vote is manipulated by the EC.

Unfortunately, all we can do is alter the EC, we cannot do away with it because it was installed as an Amendment to the constitution. And so?

So, we change the amendment to read that ONLY THE WINNER OF THE POPULAR-VOTE WITHIN THE STATE IS CONFIRMED BY THE EC to Congress. Unless I am mistaken, at present that is possible. But, indeed, I am no expert at Constitutional law ....

 

The constitution gives state legislatures the power to award their state's electoral votes in a manner the legislature directs. Prior to the civil war, many states didn't have a popular vote, the state legislature awarded their electoral votes. Only after the civil war did all the states go to the popular vote.

And yes, Article II, section 1 lets the selecting and manner up to the legislature of each state. Maine and Nebraska today award their electoral votes via congressional district, the winner of each congressional districts gets that congressional district's electoral vote. The other 48 states are winner take all going to the candidate who received the most votes. Plurality or majority doesn't matter.

The other 48 winner take all states is what I think we need to change. If any candidate receives a majority of any of those states popular votes, 50% plus one vote, award all that states electoral votes to the majority winner. If not, go to the congressional district method, ala Maine and Nebraska with the remaining two electoral votes to the plurality winner.

Until 1968 here in Georgia, we had a runoff law for the presidency. If no candidate received a majority, 50% plus one vote, then a runoff election was held three weeks later between the top two finishers. Ensuring at that time that the winner would always have a majority vote. That was rescinded in 1968 for the presidency, but kept intact for all other state offices.

But for the presidency, I like the majority vote for winner take all, if no candidate gets a majority, then via congressional districts. There were around 13 states that awarded all their electoral votes to a minority or a plurality winner in 2016. If they had gone via congressional district since no candidate received a majority of the vote, 50% plus one, Hillary would have picked up 16 more electoral votes that what she had. Not enough to change the election results. Trump won 230 congressional districts to 205 for Hillary.

 

You are saying that because the Constitution says it, such voting madness is correct? I don't buy that.

We've come ahead 200 years since the First Constitution in the World was written. And it got a few things very, very wrong. (From which democracies since have learned the lesson and avoided the mistakes!)

Thank you for the mickmack that underscores my point. The PotUS is the Executive Head of the entire country. We DO NOT NEED either states of parties deciding who gets what votes in a National Election. The number of votes in a HofR election depend purely upon state populations that result from serous efforts to count the population. They are changed every ten years. But the basic rule maintains that any election of representatives, other than the Senate, is made upon a popular-vote.

Both Gerrymandering and the EC have got to go because they manipulate the popular vote. The popular-vote of the nation MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE over the state vote in matters that are national in nature. And selling BigMacks at McDonalds is a national business. Like a great many other matters as well. Weather you own a gun, and where you own it are state-matters. (Though, quite personally, I would prefer that guns be banned in general except for hunting - animals, not humans!)

Worse yet, Gerrymandering is employed in state-voting as well! A country cannot call itself a "fair and equitable democracy" if it allows such voting shenanigans ...

 

Yes, that's been said a hundred times already. But it is irrelevant. The Constitution was not CAST IN CONCRETE!

If we, the sheeple, wanted to get rid of an Amendment, we can vote a Congress that will do it. Of course, that ability to repeal/modify the Constitution must be ratified by the states; so it is not mission-impossible if enough people wanted it to change. Which is the problem. There is no will to change anything. We are just muddling along - and incompetents like Donald Dork win presidencies.

What must first be understood by all is the Basic Premise of any Real Democracy. That the vote of the people is sacred and it must not be manipulated in any way. It's so damn simple:The winner is the individual who garners the most votes. Period ... !

 

I have no problem going with just the popular vote nationwide as long as it requires a majority vote. A majority vote is 50% plus one. No minority presidents. If more people vote against a candidate than for, that candidate shouldn't become president. The will of the people, the majority didn't want that candidate.

I also would have no problems with going to rounds for the election. First round, all candidates on the ballot regardless of party. Just names of the candidates with no party affiliation listed. If no candidate receives a majority 50% plus one vote, then go to round two between the top two finishers regardless of party. Having all of America vote in round one, not just one political party loyalist. Our primary system today gave us two candidates that approximately 60% of America didn't want one or the other to become president.

But chances like the above would require a constitutional amendment which isn't about to happen. So we need to look at what the states can do under the constitution. You can be a realist and work for something, although not ideal to improve the way we do elections or live in a fantasy world peeved your candidate didn't win.

I won't support a system, only popular vote where a majority of people vote against a candidate, but that candidate still wins and becomes a minority president unwanted by most Americans. We might as well stick with the electoral college as is. At least a majority of electoral votes are required, 50% plus one for a candidate to be declared a winner. I'd much prefer my hybrid system.

1 popular vote, if no candidates receives the required 50% plus one, go to step two.
2 electoral college, 50% plus one required. 270 at present. If no candidate receives the required 270 or 50% plus one, go to step 3.
3 As is stated in the Constitution, The House decides who will be president. Article II, section 1 and the 12th amendment.

 

Okay, get the amendment passed.

 

Easier said than done ...

 

Exactly, that is why those who want change should start by working the state legislatures. Where change is possible without an amendment. You don't have to worry about 2/3rds vote in the house or the senate. You don't have to worry about 3/4ths of the states ratifying it. A simple majority in any state legislature could bring about change in how they award their electoral votes. That is as long as the Governor signs it.

The electoral college can't be done away with via state legislatures. But each state legislature has the power to make awarding of their electoral votes more equatable. Even with gerrymandering, I feel awarding electoral votes via the congressional district is more equatable, fairer than giving all one's state electoral votes to a single candidate who didn't even win a majority of that state's vote.

I suppose one could go by proportional awarding also. That's up to each state. It's a start.

 

The Constitution is designed to be amended. What you are objecting to is the Constitution.