Soldier dies while trying to vote during Civil War

[RJNorton]

(11-19-2018 12:50 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  There is no sustainable counter argument. Roger's post is not a counter argument, but rather an observation

David, I agree with what you said ("an observation"), but I shall try to give what I consider to be a valid counter argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College. Looking at the 2016 election --> Leaving California out, Donald Trump won the other 49 states by a margin of 1.4 million votes. He lost the national popular vote by 2.8 million votes because of the huge winning margin Hillary Clinton accumulated in California. Hillary Clinton would have won the election if we simply used the popular vote as the determining factor. Would it have been fair to the nation as a whole to give that much power to one state (California)? The rest of the nation, taken as a whole, preferred Trump. (Trump won 30 states; Clinton won 20)

IMO, this scenario is one of the election outcomes the framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent when the electoral system was written into the Constitution during that hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787. They didn't want a huge state (population-wise) to have too much power over the other states.

[David Lockmiller]

The Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate, with some defending it and others calling for its abolition.

Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, discourages the excessive growth of political parties and preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote.

Opponents of the Electoral College argue that it can result in a person becoming president even though an opponent got more votes (which has happened in two out of the last five presidential elections); that it causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few "swing states" while ignoring most areas of the country; and that its allocation of Electoral College votes gives citizens in less populated rural states as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous urban states.
Since 1864, the electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on Election Day. The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through indirect election by the citizens. Polls since 1967 have shown that a majority of Americans favor the president and vice president being elected by the nationwide popular vote, instead of by the Electoral College.

Since 1996, all but two states have followed the winner takes all method of allocating electors by which every person named on the slate for the ticket winning the statewide popular vote are named as presidential electors. Maine and Nebraska are the only states not using this method. In those states, the winner of the popular vote in each of its congressional districts is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electors.

(Source: Electoral College – Wikipedia)

The 2016 United States presidential election in Florida was won by Donald Trump on November 8, 2016, with a plurality of 49.0% of the popular vote that included a 1.2% winning margin over Hillary Clinton, who had 47.8% of the vote.

(Source: Wikipedia - United States presidential election in Florida, 2016)

The 2016 United States presidential election in California of November 8, 2016 was won by Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 61.7% majority of the popular vote over Republican Donald Trump with 31.6% of the popular vote. All of California's 55 electoral votes were assigned to Clinton.

(Source: Wikipedia - United States presidential election in California, 2016)

If California’s 55 electoral votes had been distributed in proportion to the popular vote for the top two candidates, then Hillary Clinton would have been allocated 36 electors to Donald Trump’s allocation of 19 electors in the Electoral College in 2016.

If Florida’s 29 electoral votes had been distributed in proportion to the popular vote for the top two candidates, then Donald Trump would have been allocated 15 electors to Hillary Clinton’s allocation of 14 electors in the Electoral College in 2016.

I now present an alternative to my initial proposal:

Each of the state’s allocated electoral votes, as currently provisioned in the Constitution, could be distributed in accordance with each state’s popular vote for the top two candidates for President. No longer would there be any “winner take all” states, except on the basis of an individual state popular vote so determining such an outcome. A constitutional amendment would not be required; rural and small states would retain their disproportionate weight in the selection of the President; and, most importantly, “swing states” with registered Democrats and Republicans in substantially equal proportion would no longer be disproportionately important in the campaigning for presidential elections. This proposal would encourage presidential candidates to campaign nationwide and thus more fairly and truly yield “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

[Steve]

Wikipedia is wrong - the Colorado state legislature picked their state's presidential electors in 1876.

[JMadonna]

Here's my solution to assure the 'one man one vote' principle.
To be valid a voter must leave his fingerprint on his ballot. Compare the prints - if a duplicate occurs throw it out and go after the fraudster, if the fingerprint is smeared and can't be read - throw it out too. You can't fix stupid

[Steve]

I thought of this thread after reading this article about how women lost the right to vote in 1807:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ms/576106/

[AussieMick]

(11-20-2018 02:01 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Here's my solution to assure the 'one man one vote' principle.
To be valid a voter must leave his fingerprint on his ballot. Compare the prints - if a duplicate occurs throw it out and go after the fraudster, if the fingerprint is smeared and can't be read - throw it out too. You can't fix stupid

I refuse to believe that with all the technical facilities which we now have, that its impossible to devise a process for electronically voting in a way which is 100% secure.

[JMadonna]

(11-23-2018 10:54 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  I refuse to believe that with all the technical facilities which we now have, that its impossible to devise a process for electronically voting in a way which is 100% secure.

There are ways but they will not be implemented. Why would a politician (or their party) want to give up a cheating advantage?