Ka-pi96 said:
Cobretti2 said:
Exactly to me this is wacked and broken. I also think the most votes wins is also broken because using Virginia as an example, 75% of the state voted republican but their voices are ignored because they live in hicksville and only the cities were democratic. What would work better is if every state seat was up for grabs individually for both sides (i.e. if there is 6 seats create 6 electoral regions). One party should not have full control of a state. Then you could end up in a situation where both parties are equal and then are forced to work with each other to benefit both side (a common middle ground) and more important all areas of the state not just the ones that voted for the winning party and rest ignored. |
huh? Only 44.3% voted republican. You're not talking about land area or something are you? Because THAT would be a stupid system. Your vote shouldn't be worth more just because nobody lives within 6 miles of you or something like that. Creating more electoral regions would make that problem worse. That's already the problem with the electoral college. If you're in a state with more people per seat then your vote is worth less than somebody in a state with less people per seat. I believe a vote in Wyoming counts for almost 3 times what a vote in California does. That's incredibly undemocratic and splitting things up even more would make it even worse. I do agree that parties shouldn't have full control of the state though, it shouldn't be winner takes all. They should use proportional representation instead. ie. if the state has 10 electors and the democrats get 60% of the votes they get 6 electors and the republicans with 40% get 4 electors. It wouldn't eliminate the aforementioned disparity in vote worth, but it would at least make every vote for the winning and losing party more important. Since the loser would still get something, and winning alone isn't everything. A big win would be worth a lot more than an incredibly narrow win (as it probably should be). |
gergroy said:
Cobretti2 said:
Exactly to me this is wacked and broken. I also think the most votes wins is also broken because using Virginia as an example, 75% of the state voted republican but their voices are ignored because they live in hicksville and only the cities were democratic. What would work better is if every state seat was up for grabs individually for both sides (i.e. if there is 6 seats create 6 electoral regions). One party should not have full control of a state. Then you could end up in a situation where both parties are equal and then are forced to work with each other to benefit both side (a common middle ground) and more important all areas of the state not just the ones that voted for the winning party and rest ignored. |
Wait, are you arguing that the empty land in Virginia should have more say then the people that live in cities? |
I am talking about the land yes because people live on it. All people deserve some sort of representation if their political views are say 100% opposite to the winning party.
However, I ain't talking about 100s of areas. Virginia for example has 13 seats, you would have 13 areas. They don't even have to be the same size. In Australia they try to group them roughly by the same population size within that state, so the country areas may be 5x bigger than say a city area. Every now and then redraw the boundaries based on population movements and growths.
So using Virginia's counties as an example, On the west side maybe say 15 counties make up one seat, where the city is, it could be another seat just for the metro area.
However if this is too complex to work out and because of america's history perhaps it easier to do it the other way as Ka-pi96 pointed out, maybe just split the seats based on percentage on the total vote.