What's new

Congressional district method

BDK

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
143
Messages
928
Loc
San Diego, Kingman
I don't think this has been brought up here before. I don't see it happening nationwide just because it would even out the playing field for states with large cities that vote primarily blue no matter what and also with large rural areas that vote primarily red, but it just seems like a fairer system to me.

Congressional district method

There are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another, proposed, in Virginia. Under the implemented means, one electoral vote goes per the plurality of the popular votes of each congressional district; and two per the statewide popular vote. This may result in greater proportionality. It has often acted as the other states result, as in 1992. Then George H. W. Bush won all five of Nebraska's electoral votes with a clear plurality on 47% of the vote; in a truly proportional system, he would have received three and Bill Clinton and Ross Perot each would have received one.[SUP][132][/SUP]

In 2013, the Virginia proposal was tabled. This would distribute the electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia's congressional districts; the two statewide electoral votes would be awarded based on which candidate won the most congressional districts.[SUP][133][/SUP]

A congressional district method is more likely to arise than other alternatives to the winner-takes-whole-state method, in view of the main two parties resistance to scrap first-past-the-post. State legislation is sufficient to use this method.[SUP][134][/SUP] Advocates of the method believe the system encourages higher voter turnout and/or incentivizes candidates, often, to visit and appeal to states deemed "safe", overall, for one party.[SUP][135][/SUP] Winner-take-all systems ignore thousands of popular votes; in Democratic California there are Republican districts, in Republican Texas there are Democratic districts. Because candidates have an incentive to campaign in competitive districts, with a district plan, candidates have an incentive to actively campaign in over thirty states versus about seven "swing" states.[SUP][136][/SUP][SUP][137][/SUP] Opponents of the system, however, argue candidates might only spend time in certain battleground districts instead of the entire state and cases of gerrymandering could become exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe districts as they can.[SUP][138][/SUP]

Unlike simple congressional district comparisons, the district plan popular vote bonus in the 2008 election would have given Obama 56% of the Electoral College versus the 68% he did win; it "would have more closely approximated the percentage of the popular vote won [53%]".[SUP][139][/SUP]
Implementation


Of the 43 multi-district states whose 514 electoral votes are amenable to the method, Maine (4 EV) and Nebraska (5 EV) use it.[SUP][140][/SUP] Maine began using the congressional district method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the congressional district method since the election of 1992.[SUP][141][/SUP][SUP][142][/SUP] Michigan used the system for the 1892 presidential election,[SUP][132][/SUP][SUP][143][/SUP][SUP][144][/SUP] and several other states used various forms of the district plan before 1840: Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, and New York.[SUP][145][/SUP]

The congressional district method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Prior to 2008, neither Maine nor Nebraska had ever split their electoral votes.[SUP][132][/SUP] Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.[SUP][146][/SUP] Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the congressional district method and return to the winner-takes-all system.[SUP][147][/SUP] In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system;[SUP][148][/SUP] the bill died in committee in March 2011.[SUP][149][/SUP] Republicans had passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to do the same, vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.[SUP][147][/SUP]
Recent abandoned adoption in other states
In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who controlled both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a congressional district method system. Pennsylvania had voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so some saw this as an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Although Democrat Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008, he won 55% of its popular vote. The district plan would have awarded him 11 of its 21 electoral votes, a 52.4% which was much closer to the popular vote percentage.[SUP][150][/SUP][SUP][151][/SUP] The plan later lost support.[SUP][152][/SUP] Other Republicans, including Michigan state representative Pete Lund,[SUP][153][/SUP] RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have floated similar ideas.[SUP][154][/SUP][SUP][155][/SUP]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Congressional_district_method

https://www.bustle.com/articles/191...t-method-maine-nebraska-do-things-differently

https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

Map of 2016 election if we were on the Congressional District Method.

cd_method_2016.png
 
Hows about....
total votes for candidate x 1.9k
Total votes for candidate y 2.9k
Y wins?:usa: Electoral college is fubar.
kinda like the 9th striking down our popular vote!
 
Last edited:
Hows about....
total votes for candidate x 1.9k
Total votes for candidate y 2.9k
Y wins?:usa: Electoral college is fubar.
kinda like the 9th striking down our popular vote!

that's a sure fire way to make sure that only dense population centers run the country.

Why would you bother with 90% of the country when you only need to campaign 10% of it to win?
 
Guess
I
NEED
TO
SPELL
IT
OUT!?

Let's say AMERICA has 10 million voters!
Polls count 7 million votes!
5 million for x
2 million for y
X wins?!
 
Guess
I
NEED
TO
SPELL
IT
OUT!?

Let's say AMERICA has 10 million voters!
Polls count 7 million votes!
5 million for x
2 million for y
X wins?!

yes.

and geographically where are most of those voters located?

the electoral college was instituted not only because of the difficulties of counting all the votes in the 18th century, but also to ensure that states with less population don't get run roughshod by those with the population.

removing it and going to just a popular vote will simply negate 90% of the geographic united states from the fucking election. If you think the flyover states are neglected now by politicians, wait until you remove any and all need for their votes to win. politicians will campaign and appease the cities on the coasts and the rest of us get fucked. Fast forward 50 fucking years and suddenly it's like the hungers games in here.

Do I need to spell that out any more for you?
Or can you realize now that it would lead to 10% of the US controlling the entirety of the federal fucking government you fucking walnut.

edit:
There are more people in los angeles than there are in my entire state.
 
Last edited:
87manche

I am a conservative republican in the prk, said " I do" to my govt.
have shook hands with the suckremento elite in charge of my district.
Still have NO idea how all the laws we NEVER VOTED FOR happen!
College math.
But you have a point.
But why register to vote if big brother cannot find your vote?
 
Last edited:
All of these cockamamie ideas are rooted in the assumption there must be an all-powerful national government that will micromanage the people and that majority vote of the people is the "fair" way to select this all-powerful national government.

Its all WRONG!

The country is large and diverse both geographically and culturally. One size does not fit all. Even 200 hundred plus years ago our Founders recognized this and established a minimalist national government with most powers delegated to the states. Now look at us. :lmao:

The Federal government needs to be gutted. The primary role of the Federal government should be national defense, international relations, and resolving disputes between the states (basically the powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution). The departments of Education, Labor, Justice, Energy, Human Services, Interior, Transportation, etc, ad nauseum. Gone. At that point, who gets elected President becomes more-or-less irrelevant when it comes to domestic policy. As it should be.

Instead of the people electing the President, each state gets ONE vote for President. All States are equal.

DONE.

EDIT: And the Federal government is not allowed to run a deficit nor accumulate debt!
 
Last edited:
Remember
as goes commiefornia goes the country!
Just look at all the states full of transplant Californians
west of the sippi!
 
all of these cockamamie ideas are rooted in the assumption there must be an all-powerful national government that will micromanage the people and that majority vote of the people is the "fair" way to select this all-powerful national government.

Its all wrong!

The country is large and diverse both geographically and culturally. One size does not fit all. Even 200 hundred plus years ago our founders recognized this and established a minimalist national government with most powers delegated to the states. Now look at us. :lmao:

The federal government needs to be gutted. The primary role of the federal government should be national defense, international relations, and resolving disputes between the states (basically the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution). The departments of education, labor, justice, energy, human services, interior, transportation, etc, ad nauseum. Gone. At this point, who gets elected president becomes more-or-less irrelevant when it comes to domestic policy. As it should be.

Instead of the people electing the president, each state gets one vote for president. All states are equal.

Done.

Edit: And the federal government is not allowed to run a deficit nor accumulate debt!

get
some!
 
All of these cockamamie ideas are rooted in the assumption there must be an all-powerful national government that will micromanage the people and that majority vote of the people is the "fair" way to select this all-powerful national government.

Its all WRONG!

The country is large and diverse both geographically and culturally. One size does not fit all. Even 200 hundred plus years ago our Founders recognized this and established a minimalist national government with most powers delegated to the states. Now look at us. :lmao:

The Federal government needs to be gutted. The primary role of the Federal government should be national defense, international relations, and resolving disputes between the states (basically the powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution). The departments of Education, Labor, Justice, Energy, Human Services, Interior, Transportation, etc, ad nauseum. Gone. At that point, who gets elected President becomes more-or-less irrelevant when it comes to domestic policy. As it should be.

Instead of the people electing the President, each state gets ONE vote for President. All States are equal.

DONE.

EDIT: And the Federal government is not allowed to run a deficit nor accumulate debt!

well that's what we started with, but now it's fucked.

which is why you can't just hand the pitbull that is the federal government to the 20 cities that have more population than literally the rest of the country.
 
well that's what we started with, but now it's fucked.

which is why you can't just hand the pitbull that is the federal government to the 20 cities that have more population than literally the rest of the country.
Yup. At least not without triggering a revolution. . .
 
Just admit the republican base is a dewindling demographic and no way you count it will help fix that. The US will be majority mexican by 2050. It's lost whether Trump wins or not.

That's why if he wins he needs to deport all their fucking asses and make them take all their kids with them. I dont give a fuck if their kids are "legal". :stirthepot: Your kids getting legal status if you can make it to the touchdown line before border patrol catches you is the dumbest idea ever. :shaking:
 
Just admit the republican base is a dewindling demographic and no way you count it will help fix that. The US will be majority mexican by 2050. It's lost whether Trump wins or not.

That's why if he wins he needs to deport all their fucking asses and make them take all their kids with them. I dont give a fuck if their kids are "legal". :stirthepot: Your kids getting legal status if you can make it to the touchdown line before border patrol catches you is the dumbest idea ever. :shaking:

OMG. You are a fawking moron. I think we should deport you before we deport any Mexicans.

The Republican base (whatever that means) is not dwindling. If anything, this election proves that its increasing. Even with a complete idiot for a candidate the Republican party garnered 50% of the popular vote. Get a real candidate and jettison some LOSING issues (ie. religion/abortion and immigration) and the Republican party would dominate. This of course assumes that the Democratic party continues to self-destruct with the progressive/socialist/green new deal/antifa/blm bull shit.
 
Top Back Refresh