itt we reform the presidential election system
Libshits are wrong to try to undermine Trump's victory, but it is true that the current electoral college system is dated and doesn't reflect modern politics as well as it should. Whats a better way to do it?
Popular vote with national ID laws.
Why would you redo it? Your system makes perfect sense for your country. It is a group of many states with different laws, cultures and customs.
nuke california
Fascist dictatorship
these are probably the most popular proposals. IMO they all miss the mark.
>direct popular vote
democracy-tier trash. Every election would be decided by pandering to LA, Chicago and NYC
>National Bonus
In addition to the traditional electoral votes X more votes are allocated nationally in proportion to the popular vote
>Congressional District Plan
Each state has two electoral votes allocated by the state's popular vote. Each congressional district awards its electoral vote independently. This is what Maine and Nebraska do
>but it is true that the current electoral college system is dated and doesn't reflect modern politics as well as it should.
No.
>Whats a better way to do it?
Mandatory & uniform voter ID laws. Uniform enfranchisement laws (voting age, felons, etc.)
If leftists hate it you're probably doing something right.
>Whats a better way to do it?
Get rid of the fundamentally flawed idea that the electoral agent knows what's best for the welfare of the people and nation.
Like cattle eating and drinking to the point they can't stand up, eventually dying because of their own stupidity.
No reform needed, America isn't a democracy, it's a republic.
Democracy doesn't work, the electoral college was made to protect us from mob rule. You retarded young people that want to abolish it because (((they))) have brainwashed them
It will never happen
You'll never get enough agreement on
Litterally the worst idea
It needs updating. Conservatives in deeply blue states and liberals in deeply red states often feel cheated that their vote effecively doesn't count since the states are winner take all. Plus most election comes usually come down to 1-3 swing states. 2016 is an exception but most elections are just all about Florida and Ohio, while everything else is ignored. Theres other issues but those are the two people complain about the most. Additinally it reinforces systematic problems such as two-party duopoly
It worked better 200 years ago. But today discontent with the system is widespread and bipartison. Its just that no one is sure what to do about it
Reduce federal over reach and put more power back to state and local. It's completely ridiculous how much important people invest into the CEO of the federal government corporation compared to all the other positions.
Actually i would be more for the current system, as it gives the more diluted places a just voice. Deluted being in terms of population density.
>electoral votes are handed out automatically, no actual electors who could be faithless
>EVs are are handed out proportionally to the popular vote in each state (e.g. getting 60% of the vote in a state with 10 EVs gets you 6 EVs)
Find a flaw.
This isn't a democracy, it's a republic. 50 sovereign states voting for who they want to represent the country. It's not a popularity contest. If you feel cheated, move to more conservative or liberal state. This is the beauty of the states. You can effectively vote with your feet.
Rounding states with odd numbers of votes
If anything it's far more relevant than ever before.
Without it the vote of a Starbucks barrista in LA would be more valuable than the vote of a farmer who is actively feeding the nation in the Midwest.
I'm not proposing democracy. In fact, I think an argument can be made that the system is more democratic today than intended. In the beginning of the US, it was much more republican in the sense that candidates had to form a coalition of many states. The system today is completely about popular appeal rather than a coalition of interests like you want in a republic
I dont know why people assume that wanting to reform the electoral college means that we are going to have straight democracy. Thats just the libshit proposal. There are other ways to build a strong republic
Force states to have electoral voter IDS and leave the system as it is. It seems to be working just fine.
>but it is true that the current electoral college system is dated and doesn't reflect modern politics as well as it should.
No argument for this was found in your post. You simply stated it as true. Could you provide reasons and evidence please?
No, it's just every year whoever loses blames the electoral collage and claims it needs updating. The "discontent" is not bipartisan, it's just people who don't like Trump.
...
The two parties are better for America
You would never have a competitive right party in a multi party system, you end up dividing people among man coalitions.
That goes against the fundamentals of The US. We aren't supposed to divide ourselves by party, but by geography.
That is part of the success of the US believe it or not.
This isnt about proposing direct popular vote. Its about structuring the electoral college differently
see
Okay. Abolish popular vote for president and vice president and let the house and senate do it.
the states popular vote can determine the rounding
If the system was reformed it would almost certainly benefit conservatives. For example, if every state switched to a system like Maine or Nebraska, NY, CA and IL would have their huge voting blocks broken up. The way it is right now democrats get over 100 votes free just because of those states. Conservatives hardly even bother voting. But if each congressional district assigned its vote independently, then red districts would be able to go against the popular vote of the state.
Required ID and Land Deed Checks, and Paper Ballots.
>Each state has two electoral votes allocated by the state's popular vote. Each congressional district awards its electoral vote independently. This is what Maine and Nebraska do
best system IMO. strikes the balance between respecting popular vote and not getting dominated by cities
not a bad idea. It would force people to actually give a shit about congressional races. It would also allow 3rd parties to have more relevancy. I just don't see Americans going for that. Americans really fucking like voting for president
Imagine you lived in a neighborhood with 4 houses on a small unnamed street. One of the houses is occupied by a married couple with two children, the other three houses are occupied by single individuals. The state requests that the neighborhood decide on a street name for mail purposes so the neighborhood decides to vote on it. Should this vote be based on popular vote or should each house he given one vote? I would argue that a popular vote would be unfair because it would give one household the power to decide the street name.
Australian way. There's even someone above the government who's only job it is to sack the government when they're being cunts.
Compulsory voting too so no errors or miscalculations.
Everyone hates politicians in Aus so we dont even have shills. They're all cunts so we vote for the least cuntiest.
Dozens of parties too so if you dont want to vote for the usual 2 cucks you vote for someone else, like guns&fishing party or sex party or something.
We also dont have the "my family has been voting the same for 150 years" crap you guys do either. You guys gotta stop doin that.
how can I make it more clear that I don't want a direct popular vote? I've said it probably 5 times in this thread
>Popular vote with national ID laws.
what's the deal with that? we have to vote with IDs pretty much everywhere else and it didn't save us any trouble with lefties and retards
Monarchy
Only for president. They still have their say in state matters, and as such it is up to them to organize and manage their state and local level politics and push such a policy change should they wish it.
Maine and Nebraska are proportional because on the state and local level they have chosen to be proportional. It's up to the other states if they want to switch.
Remember, we are not a single state. We are a republic of individual sovereign states. The people do not nor have they ever directly chosen the president. A federally imposed proportional switch for the states is only going to strip more power away from the states and bring us closer to a mobocracy.
Then what the fuck are you proposing? Voter ID laws. Keep everything else the same, done.
>There's even someone above the government who's only job it is to sack the government when they're being cunts.
how does that work?
>We also dont have the "my family has been voting the same for 150 years" crap you guys do either. You guys gotta stop doin that.
thats because we are stuck in a two party system and always have been. I think it might be a consequence of how the electoral system is designed. It wasn't intentional but thats the way it is. The entire history of the US party system is this:
Federalist vs Democratic-Republican
Whig vs Democrat
Republican vs Democrat
Theres of course been a couple times other parties popped up and shook things up but its basically been that for 230+ years
this
>Then what the fuck are you proposing? Voter ID laws. Keep everything else the same, done.
I guess the point is democracy is fucking stupid and tyrannical, lad
>rural interests not under-represented
>urban interests not over-represented
WORKING AS INTENDED
>it is up to them to organize and manage their state and local level politics and push such a policy change should they wish it
>It's up to the other states if they want to switch
>if people want to change it then they have to change it therefore we can't talk about it
It would be a state matter, not a matter of the electoral collage. If you start of saying you want to change the electoral collage, then you are no longer talking about solving the issue at the state level, but proposing imposing a solution onto the states using federal power.
Are you seeing the issue yet?
urban interests are over represented. LA, Chicago, and NYC should not be able to hijack the rest of their states as they currently do.
In the past there used to be more consensus between rural areas and urban areas. Today almost every state has rural folks resenting the big cities because the cities hijack the politics. Any electoral reform would almost certainly benefit rural areas more than urban. Only the libshit proposal of direct popular vote benefits urban areas more
Think of it this way. If the US and China and India wanted to come up with a resolution on where to send a space mission. Do you think it would make sense to go on what popular vote says? Or should it be more based on contribution to the effort.
If you do a popular vote, basically the U.S. has no say since their population is much smaller.
>itt we reform the presidential election system
One state one vote
>I think an argument can be made that the system is more democratic today than intended.
you can
It was originally 3 to 1 house to senate
It is now 4 to 1
what the fuck is wrong with talking about possible changes? What is the issue with proposing changes? If someone came up with a really good idea they can sure as shit campaign for it state by state.
That said, electoral reformers have encountered this before. They find that while some states occasionally get traction for reform, they are hesitant to enact it because it might temporarily give them a disadvantage in some way compared to states that don't adopt the reform. And possible changes can go well past just how electoral votes are allocated. IMO a complete overhaul should be on the table.
Also changing the electoral college at the federal level would require constitutional amendment which needs congress and 2/3 of the states. It would be a very long process that almost certainly would not pass unless there was widespread consensus.
>A complete overhaul should be on the table.
I disagree entirely. The system not only works, it has worked better than any other system of representation in history. Again, it's just the losers who seem to be upset about it every four years.
>Also changing the electoral college at the federal level would require constitutional amendment which needs congress and 2/3 of the states. It would be a very long process that almost certainly would not pass unless there was widespread consensus.
Exactly. And there is not, because it's just the people who lose who complain about it.
I have yet to see anyone actually show a demonstrative flaw in the electoral collage, except, arguably, the electors themselves having the ability to throw off the vote, although that is a matter of tradition at this point and it has yet to cause any issue.
every state gets 1 electoral vote.
do you realize how gross that ass is going to look in 10 years?