Electoral college for counties.

I think most all of us here understand the importance of the Electoral college as a protection for small states and rural states in the Federal election system.

I think any state that still can should put into effect a 51% majority of counties needed to elect a candidate for state office or to elect a representative to the US congress or senate from that state..

this way if 51% of counties oppose a governor then there needs to be a new election until a candidate can win both the popular vote and the 51% of counties.

as an example ILL is now at 50% of counties as 2A sanctuary counties if every governor had to be elected by both 51% of counties and a majority imagine how much that would change ILL

http://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019...ner-sanctuary-counties-just-keep-coming/

so put the safeguards in place early

I know that this will be seen by many as making the vote and representation of people in urban centers less important but in reality if a candidate had to win both popular and by county think of how much better represented the whole state would be and not just 5% of counties.

Oregon is in bad need of this type of representation.

I mostly agree except for the new elections part. I'd be fine with a plurality of counties or representative districts.

a quick look at the map will tell you most of the country is in need of this type of representation . https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

Yep or something similar but most of the swamp will figure away around it

if there were 100 counties in a state and 90 of the counties vote against the governor but 10 elect the governor on popular vote only how would you handle that ?

In MN, the liberal Twin Cities determine where the electoral college votes go because they are the largest population. The rural area of MN is pretty much conservative. I would like to see electoral college votes split as there are a few states that do that now. I could be wrong, but doesn't NE & NH do that? That seems a fair way to see that certain area's votes do matter.
An example would be MN has 12 electoral college votes. The votes could be delegated as such: 6 votes Twin Cities, 3 votes southern MN, 3 votes northern MN.

The way it is now, candidates mostly campaign in the largest cities where the most votes are.

Maine and Nebraska are the 2 states that split their electoral votes . and they are split by congregational district.

Minn has 87 counties in 2016 7 went blue 80 went red and Hillary carried the state by 1.5% in the popular vote.

that should really highlight the issue. had a simple percentage been used then 6 votes could be given to blue and 5 red and one not cast showing that while blue won it was a nearly even split

however had it been a county by county it would have been 92% red to 8% blue

really the better option would be sold as a fail-safe measure if the popular vote and 51% of counties do not agree no electoral votes get cast taking 12 electoral votes away making it that much more likely that neither candidate can reach 270.

however I was thinking of this not in the Federal election so much as for state elections like Governor and Senators.

but if you had the fail-safe of not casting any electoral college votes is your state is hung counties vs popular think about how much all candidates would have to look at representing all their constituents and not just a small urban space with a large dense urban population.


Nevada had just 2 counties go blue in 2016 yet the state went blue with 6 electoral votes

New Hampshire had just 3 counties go blue yet the state went blue with 4 electoral votes

Illinois 11 counties went blue 91 red but the state went blue with 20 electoral college votes

I think you can see the trend.

also it is not unheard of for electoral votes to not be cast at all.

I've been a proponent of a state electoral college system for years. I doubt it will ever happen but it's a very equitable system. It would eliminate the major urban centers' control of state elections.

People need to get off their butts a vote since the new game is going with the popular vote route and crying if the electoral collage does not work for them! Here in SD it's a done deal so a lot of people stay home. If the laid backs voted like they should vote in every State it might make a difference.

One of the things that the people pushing the popular vote dont realize is that after the first time this goes through, the voting behavior of the electorate is going to change dramatically. That or were will be doomed.

Lots of people cant be bothered to vote.
They don't see any difference from one stripe to the next so just take what they get and keep on truckin.
Voting should be made mandatory.Too lazy to vote-locked up until the next election.

Spoken like a true Fascist!

I have said in the last few years, we need in each state a fairer representation on selecting the Electoral vote.

My suggestion would be each county would have a number of votes. If one county had 2 million people(example) then they would get maybe 3 votes.

The county with only 250,000 would get two votes. All smaller counties would get one vote. Proportionate representation as per the area vote.

Then the total of Electoral count would dictate the choice of Electoral candidates as to per their affiliation.

It would follow par to the National Electoral College.

Here in Michigan we have areas that cut off the rest of the state for any Bills or Laws that are presented.

My $.02

Lugnut

Quote

It would eliminate the major urban centers' control of state elections.

If there were 100 counties, and 90 of them went one way and 10 went the other way, then that'd be a 90% majority for the winner if that state had the proposed system.

A plurality requires 3 or more candidates. An example would be one candidate wins 45%, one wins 30%, and one wins 25%. No candidate won a majority of the vote, but the guy with 45% won a plurality of the vote and would win the election.

You don't have a democracy or republic represented by the will of the people when you use boundaries instead of people as your marker for determining majorities.

Bryce

Our founding fathers got it right...Now you know the rest of the story.

I am not saying that the number of counties would decide the winner but if the number of counties is vastly disproportional to the way the popular election went a safety would be in place to provide better representation to the hole of the state and not just one corner or one city.

what I am saying as a fail safe if 51% of both counties and popular vote didn't agree then neither party would win the election. many states already require a >50% majority so if there are 3 candidates and A got 30% B got 33% and C got 36%.
B and C would have to have a runoff election.

in the electoral college if no person gets 270 electoral votes there is no winner .this is federal and I am thinking of this as a state option but a state could choose to fail safe the federal election for president if a state failed to produce a majority of both counties and popular vote then if could refuse to cast any electoral votes.

if suddenly 50 or more electoral votes were out of the running any one getting 270 would start to get very hard.


I am not looking at this as a way to stack an election but as a way to force politicians to have to represent everyone more and not just a select group that will get them a popular vote.

but over and over across the country we see 1-3 metropolitan populations deciding everything in the state from one corner.

without the electoral college in the federal election the population from the 10 largest metropolitan areas in the USA could carry the entire popular vote.

Here in WI the population in the 51% of the smallest counties is 759,000 with 260,000 of those living in small cities and villages. There are about 5.6 million people in WI. The top 10 counties in WI have a population of 4 million with over 400,000 of those living in rural areas so this argument that rural voters need a voice is out the door with your logic. There are more rural voters in the populated areas then the sparse areas and we would lose our voice.
I live in a county that is considered suburban. We have 83000 people of which 28, 000 are not in the cities or villages which is more rural citizens then the smallest 4-5 counties in WI.
Also if you don't think there is a difference between being rural Waukashau county verses Forest County then you have a narrow definition of what you call rural.

Bryce

The House decides the winner if no candidate hits 270.

Totally agree. As I said, why campaign in the rural areas? Hit the large cities that's where the votes are and what matters under the current system.

Why do we have boundaries Bryce?

Zim

In Wisconsin the county system was established so that there was a county seat roughly a days wagon ride to a county seat that functioned as an extension of the state capital. Those county boundaries were basically arbitrarily set and we also have townships which for the most part are 6 mile by 6 mile square units of government for the local level. Counties don't have set size limits as to size or population. Many have questioned the validity today of the county or boundary system due to the rapid communications and travel of our day but then if one eliminates those then all power goes to were the masses live.

In the USA we already have a branch of government that represents a minority of persons. It is our senate. The top 10 most populated states have 170 million people and 20 senators the bottom 10 in population have 9.7 million people and 20 senators, plus senator terms are 6 years. This make the senate typically our most conservative branch of government. The house is designed to represent the people and the 435 seats shift every census to try and have somewhat equal representation or people per house seat, with the exception of those states who get one regardless of their population.

Bryce

in UW reporting rural is described as anyone not in a city of 10K or more.

it may not make sense in every county especially the suburban ones ,but if a candidate was going to represent all the counties of the state they are running to be the leader of it would be nice if they visited all the counties and planned to hear all their constituents.

as I said this isn't about one party or another party winning this is about both parties working harder to represent the whole of the people.

I feel one would run into some real resistance trying to invent more ways to remove voting rights or impacts of ones vote by creating more arbitrarily set boundaries. If you follow the federal system of the house which is population based b state then you would have a system within a state that would be population based. Say one set that number at 1 for every 25K or less and then one for each additional 25k. That could put up to 200 plus in WI and that means a county like Milwaukee would have 45 seats. As one can see a lot depends up on the base line for population and also the boundary size etc.
As our country and states urbanize and grow in population, yes the metro areas gain voting power but the rural areas have a representation level larger than their population would suggest they should have. Tampering with the current system with the population demographics we have going on now may well lower impact levels instead of raising them.
Bryce

No system is perfect. Sometimes the candidate you don't like will win. Our country is still in one piece and strong. Lets not screw that up