Should the Electoral College be abandoned?

CYDdharta

Nope said:

Edril I know what swing states are. If you preform the calculations where you count the population that can vote and it's number of votes of the smallest states (Because those states have less population for each electron college vote) then divided it by half and add one vote for each of these states as you only need over half the votes of a state to get all the states votes. You can get a tie in the votes by adding up the votes of New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Colorado, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Organ, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rode island, Alaska, Delaware, District of Colombia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. If you wan't to skip the tie you can switch New Jersey with North Carolina (It will still be below 22%). To get the votes you only need a little over half the population and when you add a little over half the voting population of these states you get a little less then 22% of the US population. There for less then 22% of the US population can diced the president and override the other 78% percent. 

Actually, you come up 1 point short; 270 to win, that only gives 269, a tie.  Also, Maine and Nebraska split their vote, so a candidate would need to win in every congressional district in each of those states.

Nope

CYDdharta said:

Nope said:

Edril I know what swing states are. If you preform the calculations where you count the population that can vote and it's number of votes of the smallest states (Because those states have less population for each electron college vote) then divided it by half and add one vote for each of these states as you only need over half the votes of a state to get all the states votes. You can get a tie in the votes by adding up the votes of New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Colorado, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Organ, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rode island, Alaska, Delaware, District of Colombia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. If you wan't to skip the tie you can switch New Jersey with North Carolina (It will still be below 22%). To get the votes you only need a little over half the population and when you add a little over half the voting population of these states you get a little less then 22% of the US population. There for less then 22% of the US population can diced the president and override the other 78% percent. 

Actually, you come up 1 point short; 270 to win, that only gives 269, a tie.  Also, Maine and Nebraska split their vote, so a candidate would need to win in every congressional district in each of those states.

What is one point short?

CYDdharta

Nope said:

CYDdharta said:

Nope said:

Edril I know what swing states are. If you preform the calculations where you count the population that can vote and it's number of votes of the smallest states (Because those states have less population for each electron college vote) then divided it by half and add one vote for each of these states as you only need over half the votes of a state to get all the states votes. You can get a tie in the votes by adding up the votes of New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Alabama, Colorado, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Organ, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Rode island, Alaska, Delaware, District of Colombia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. If you wan't to skip the tie you can switch New Jersey with North Carolina (It will still be below 22%). To get the votes you only need a little over half the population and when you add a little over half the voting population of these states you get a little less then 22% of the US population. There for less then 22% of the US population can diced the president and override the other 78% percent. 

Actually, you come up 1 point short; 270 to win, that only gives 269, a tie.  Also, Maine and Nebraska split their vote, so a candidate would need to win in every congressional district in each of those states.

What is one point short?

The electoral map you described is one point short of a win, it is a tie.  If you swap New Jersey for North Carolina you get to 270, but your alternative is the only map that would win the election.

Edril

@Nope

You cannot get 270 electoral votes with out being supported by all regions of the country.

CYDdharta

@Nope ;  And your math is off.  43.3% of the population of the US lives in those 39 states, not 22%.

someone234

@CYDdharta you mean one in billions of debt to like... every nation on Earth because of how much it demands and borrowed? xD

Yeah... Alright... USA is the only 'fully developed' country of the 'western civilisation' that has such a high rate of poverty and unhappiness in its populace. Why? Right-wing policies not yet being corrected to centrist left-leaning ones.

CYDdharta

someone234 said:

@CYDdharta you mean one in billions of debt to like... every nation on Earth because of how much it demands and borrowed? xD

Yeah... Alright... USA is the only 'fully developed' country of the 'western civilisation' that has such a high rate of poverty and unhappiness in its populace. Why? Right-wing policies not yet being corrected to centrist left-leaning ones.

True, Obama left the country a mess; high debt, poverty, unhappiness, etc. but we can see a return to American values is already beginning to turn that around.

Nope

CYDdharta said:

@Nope ;  And your math is off.  43.3% of the population of the US lives in those 39 states, not 22%.

Yes but only a little more then half of a state voting population needs to vote for a candidate to get all the states elector college votes to vote for that candidate. A little over half of 43.3% is still less then 22%.

CYDdharta

Nope said:

Yes but only a little more then half of a state voting population needs to vote for a candidate to get all the states elector college votes to vote for that candidate. A little over half of 43.3% is still less then 22%.

So what?  If you're talking about voters, a single person could determine the election if no one else shows up to vote.  Should we get rid of voting altogether?

brontoraptor

The electoral system guarantees that one state, or a group of states cannot monopolize policies that other states disagree with. I see the U.S. kind of like Europe. It has fifty seperate countries with varying cultures. It would be a fallacy to let Britain dictate policy to all of Europe simply because of population. In turn, it would be a fallacy for Texas or California to dictate policy to the other 49 states. This system gives each culture a say and a vote.@someone234

brontoraptor

@someone234 ;Obama put us $20 trillion in debt and caused premiums to skyrocket, and? He penalized not having insurance. And it could have all been prevented with an "overturn".

Nope

Say that large states like California vote for one Candidate almost completely while the smaller states are almost split 51% for the candidate the bigger states did not want to 49% for the candidate the bigger states wanted. Why then is it possible for the almost half of the smaller states to get what they wanted over the other almost half of the same states and all of the bigger states wan't? Is it that a small majority decides what all of the states votes go to. Why can't the states just split their votes to better represent their people?