Electoral College by Congressional Districts?

Maine has been doing for sometime and Nebraska started in 1996 but it has never changed the overall vote for their electoral college

I wonder how it would change if done nationwide. I can find very little on this subject except this let alone the results of 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,4537075.story

Maine has been doing for sometime and Nebraska started in 1996 but it has never changed the overall vote for their electoral college

I wonder how it would change if done nationwide. I can find very little on this subject except this let alone the results of 2012

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,4537075.story Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

It will eliminate a big edge for the Dems. The GOP has to spot the Dems about 70 electoral votes to account for California and NY. If the GOP got about 35-40% of those electoral votes, they wouldn't have to work to hard in the rest of the country.

WAAHHH! WAAHHHH! WAAHHH!

I think it is up to the states how their electors will be divided. That is how it should be, the overall winner should get two electoral votes, then each candidate would get one vote for each congressional district carried.

But I don't expect the state legislatures in California, New York, Florida or Texas to go for that.

I think it is up to the states how their electors will be divided. That is how it should be, the overall winner should get two electoral votes, then each candidate would get one vote for each congressional district carried.

But I don't expect the state legislatures in California, New York, Florida or Texas to go for that. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Truth be told, it is probably a bad idea. Think of all the potential for voter fraud. There would be temptation every close district, not just a state level.

If you think the 2000 Florida recount was bad, imagine having to wait for results in 50 or 60 close Congressional districts. Then try to imagine the lawsuits over the really close ones, especially if it could sway the presidency.

Yeah ... Win by the rules or change them if you lose.

Fucking crybaby dipshits. Get used to losing. Gonna be happening for a while, Patriots!

Hey dum dum go read up on the 1968 election and how the democrats changed how they did everything. Now go get potty trained ya mook. Look up the McGovern-Fraser Committee.


As for the adults; the electoral college was put together for a few different reasons. Disadvantage the large states and advantage the small states in a day when the Congress used to elect the president. It also allowed those with knowledge to temper the opinions of those who didn't know much. Breaking up the states into smaller bites would benefit the GOP in New York, California, and Illinois. I can of like the idea of breaking California into two different states like West Virginia and Virginia.

I guess the "sancity and inviolability" of the Constitution as ratified in the 18th century doesn't cut much ice with you when it doesn't serve your teawipe purposes, eh?

Let me save you and your other teawipe broz some time.....any counter arguement you care to whip out only justifies any changes that have already been made to the Constitution since ratification. Yes, yes, you can't fix stupid, stupid.

Adjust your tiara, p-o-s-boy and get back to mopping the student union.

It is an idea that would broaden the democratic process...............give more representation to the people and get closer to a one man one vote concept.

Hmmm, let's see, one man one vote, eh? If you want that to be the case, then who would have been President in 2000? Who would be President today? Make an arguement that supports only Republicans getting elected since that's what you want, Klown.

Again, you expose your stupidity....I am not a Republican and I didn't vote for Bush (any of them)....


And you might be right, but probably not. If the election process was changed, the 2000 campaign would have been completely different and maybe Gore or Bush would have never even been candidates. Who knows....that said Obama might have never run; and Hillary could easily have beaten Obama because Iowa wouldn't have launched Obama into the nomination.


And that would have been a better thing for America.......But of course we know you don't care what is best for America...................

Hmmm, let's see, one man one vote, eh? If you want that to be the case, then who would have been President in 2000? Who would be President today? Make an arguement that supports only Republicans getting elected since that's what you want, Klown. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

There is nothing unconstitutional about having Electoral College votes counted by congressional districts. In fact, the states don't even have to allow the people to vote in Presidential elections. States get to choose how how their electors are distributed.

Geez, RaggedyAndy. Please know what you're talking about before posting. You will sound less stupid. Maybe.

COG, do you have any idea what Randy was talking about above?

For the record, our 18th century framers did not like, nor want, a pure democracy. That's right. They did not want one man, one vote.

No one knows what RaggedyAndy is talking about. Not even RaggedyAndy.

But you're right, JD. The "one man, one vote" idea came about much later. The Founders wanted this country to be ruled by law; by the Constitution. They did not want the people to be able to vote to take away others' rights. They wanted this to be a collection of states, not a federal union. That's why the electoral college exists, to prevent the popular will from superseding the Constitution. That is also why the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, not popular vote. That has turned out to be a disaster, and we have become exactly what Founders hated. A democracy, based on popular will, rather than the rule of law. That is why our liberty is vanishing. This is not the America envisioned by our Founders. This is what they were hoping to avoid. This explains the answer Benjamin Franklin gave in response to the question, "What kind of government have you given us?" Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Well, sorry Ben. We didn't keep it. We pissed it away.

That's right, teawipes, YOU can't understand even the simplest things. You merely attempt to contort things and try to thread the needle of your narrow minds in order to justify your "reasoning." Of course, that's why you are teawipes. But, your hypocracy was hanging out a little too far on this latest bullsh*t thread and you got your tits caught in a wringer - again.