Today ame big new that Virginia wanted to change how they were going to give out their electoral votes by congressional districts. News outlets are going crazy because they think it is just a scheme by the Republicans to get more help in nation elections. But here's the thing. Remember 2000. How George
Bush wasn't supposed to be president and yet he won. Every Democrat wanted the rules changed Today it became big new that Virginia wanted to change how they were going to give out their electoral votes by congressional districts. News outlets are going crazy because they think it is just a scheme by the Repubans to get more help in national elections. But here's the thing. Remember 2000. How George Bush wasn't supposed to be president and yet he won. Every Democrat wanted the rules changed just like any sane person would've. It meant that the man who won the vote but lost the electoral college wasn't going to be president. Unfair? Possibly, but that's how the Founding Fathers designed it.
But the point is that this discussion has happened before. Rightly so? I think so because I believe the Electoral College is flawed beyond all reasonable doubt. Yes, it gives the states more power, and it prevents the big cities from dominating the election but still, there has to be a better way to do it. The Founding Fathers designed it like this:
They wanted to make sure every state got to help decide the election, keep the big cities from electing the president, and most importantly, they didn't trust the people. they were afraid of giving the people to much power. Yes, this is ironic since it goes against the very foundation of a democracy, but they thought the common people wouldn't have enough information, so they gave the power to a select gr votes. They didn't even have to cast their vote for the winner of their state.
Today we live in different times. People can look up a candidate's entire life story by just typing in a search on the Internet. So I don't think the "common people" need to be worried about. Well hopefully. So here's what I would do:
Make each congressional district worth one electoral vote so that the people have more power in the vote. Then, let each state keep one vote for the overall winner in the state so each state keeps a little bit of its power. Finally, keep the final 50 votes for an big prize for the popular vote winner. (Washington, DC can still keep their 3 votes) I believe this solves every issue that Americans have with the Electoral College while still keeping the tradition and the safeguards that come with it. What does this mean for the election? Well, let's say that Romney wins every congressional district that the republicans won. That's 233. Now let's do every state he wins. 24 states. That equals, for a grand total: 257. Why is this number significant? It is 47.77% of the electoral college which is about the percentage that Romney got in the popular vote. Like by .3% off. Amazing? I certainly think so!
Obama therefore still wins the election since he wins the popular vote. This helps make the popular vote very influential in the election. Obama wins popular vote and still wins the national election so hopefully no more Supreme Court deciding the election.
Maybe a plan that both sides can support? Let me know what you think!
just like any sane person would've. It meant that the man who won the vote but lost the electoral college wasn't going to be president. Unfair? Possibly, but that's how the Founding Fathers designed it.
But the point is that this discussion has happened before. Rightly so? I think so because I believe the Electoral College is flawed beyond all reasonable doubt. Yes, it gives the states more power, and it prevents the big cities from dominating the election but still, there has to be a better way to do it. The Founding Fathers designed it like this:
They wanted to make sure every state got to help decide the election, keep the big cities from electing the president, and most importantly, they didn't trust the people. Seriously, they were afraid of giving the people to much power. Yes, this is ironic since it goes against the very foundation of a democracy, but they thoToday it became big new that Virginia wanted to change how they were going to give out their electoral votes by congressional districts. News outlets are going crazy because they think it is just a scheme by the Republicans to get more help in national elections. But here's the thing. Remember 2000. How George Bush wasn't supposed to be president and yet he won. Every Democrat wanted the rules changed just like any sane person would've. It meant that the man who won the vote but lost the electoral college wasn't going to be president. Unfair? Possibly, but that's how the Founding Fathers designed it.
But the point is that this discussion has happened before. Rightly so? I think so because I believe the Electoral College is flawed beyond all reasonable doubt. Yes, it gives the states more power, and it prevents the big cities from dominating the election but still, there has to be a better way to do it. The Founding Fathers designed it like this:
They wanted to make sure every state got to help decide the election, keep the big cities from electing the president, and most importantly, they didn't trust the people. Seriously, they were afraid of giving the people to much power. Yes, this is ironic since it goes against the very foundation of a democracy, but they thought the common people wouldn't have enough information, so they gave the power to a select group of men who would cast their votes. They didn't even have to cast their vote for the winner of their state.
Today we live in different times. People can look up a candidate's entire life story by just typing in a search on the Internet. So I don't think the "common people" need to be worried about. Well hopefully. So here's what I would do:
Make each congressional district worth one electoral vote so that the people have more power in the vote. Then, let each state keep one vote for the overall winner in the state so each state keeps a little bit of its power. Finally, keep the final 50 votes for an big prize for the popular vote winner. (Washington, DC can still keep their 3 votes) I believe this solves every issue that Americans have with the Electoral College while still keeping the tradition and the safeguards that come with it. What does this mean for the election? Well, let's say that Romney wins every congressional district that the republicans won. That's 233. Now let's do every state he wins. 24 states. That equals, for a grand total: 257. Why is this number significant? It is 47.77% of the electoral college which is about the percentage that Romney got in the popular vote. Like by .3% off. Amazing? I certainly think so!
Obama therefore still wins the election since he wins the popular vote. This helps make the popular vote very influential in the election. Obama wins popular vote and still wins the national election so hopefully no more Supreme Court deciding the election.
Maybe a plan that both sides can support? Let me know what you think!
ught the common people wouldn't have enough information, so they gave the power to a select group of men who would cast their votes. They didn't even have to cast their vote for the winner of their state.
Today we live in different times. People can look up a candidate's entire life story by just typing in a search on the Internet. So I don't think the "common people" need to be worried about. Well hopefully. So here's what I would do:
Make each congressional district worth one electoral vote so that the people have more power in the vote. Then, let each state keep one vote for the overall winner in the state so each state keeps a little bit of its power. Finally, keep the final 50 votes for an big prize for the popular vote winner. (Washington, DC can still keep their 3 votes) I believe this solves every issue that Americans have with the Electoral College while still keeping the tradition and the safeguards that come with it. What does this mean for the election? Well, let's say that Romney wins every congressional district that the republicans won. That's 233. Now let's do every state he wins. 24 states. That equals, for a grand total: 257. Why is this number significant? It is 47.77% of the electoral college which is about the percentage that Romney got in the popular vote. Like by .3% off. Amazing? I certainly think so!
Obama therefore still wins the election since he wins the popular vote. This helps make the popular vote very influential in the election. Obama wins popular vote and still wins the national election so hopefully no more Supreme Court deciding the election.
Maybe a plan that both sides can support? Let me know what you think!
By : Travis Whitt
No comments:
Post a Comment