What's new

Taking the electoral vote a step further


Global Warmer
May 19, 2020
Member Number
Colorado Springs
I was thinking about how here in Colorado , the Denver metro area and Boulder dominate the rest of the state when it comes to politics while smaller cities & towns as well as the more rural areas basically get kind of screwed as far as having a real voice in the state. (yes, I know, greater population density is the main factor, blah, blah, blah). An idea I had was to implement electoral voting on a state level for electing Governors. Basically each county = 1 electoral vote and if there is a tie, figure out some kind of runoff election procedure. I see this as a way to prevent a couple/few cities from dominating the rest of the state (like Chicago basically ruling/deciding for the rest Illinois or Sac/SF/LA vs the rest of California). I know it will probably never happen and I'm not even saying its a good idea because I'm sure there are some logistics I've overlooked, but it is something to think about.


**Aand before he shows up like a nasty fart in a crowded elevator, I'm sure Trollbitch :homer: will probably drop some useless one liners, that have no relevance, to try to satisfy his pathetic craving for attention (which will actually entertain me :lmao: ) but what does everyone else think?**
Last edited:
Interesting concept. Since 99% of rural counties tend to lean right, 1 vote per county would effectively sway the entire state to the right.

Perhaps weighted votes (or # of votes) per county based on population in each county so they all have an equal voice in comparison to each other?
If it was tried I see a lawsuit being filed very quickly. You know it'd happen. The "city folk" would claim they're not being represented fairly.
^ tit for tat. The way it is now, those of us in rural areas and smaller communities are not being represented equally. Or at all.

I like the idea, but getting it off the ground will be next to impossible. You are asking those who hold the power now, to give some of it up. Fat chance.
It would be a far better way to run a state, counties voting for the state legislature and governor. Each county getting 1 vote. A weighted average would just keep the power seated in the cities. Even if the rural areas were more conservative the cities would have their own local governments that could be a liberal as they want to be, offering services and perks to the locals while not pushing crazy stuff that really does not apply to rural areas.
If it was tried I see a lawsuit being filed very quickly. You know it'd happen. The "city folk" would claim they're not being represented fairly.

That's one of the biggest drawbacks that I see as well, especially with the latest push by the "popular vote only" :rolleyes: crowd.
Washington is in the same boat, Seattle and Olympia decide for the rest of us even though the whole rest of the state turns red every election year. I'd love to see it change, but like Johnny said, you're asking them to give up a sure win for a chance at a fair win, and they're not gonna go for that.
One thing I believe we are all guilty of is nobody “gets off the porch”.

How many of us has been to the local, pick your party, meetings?

My family years ago were into local county politics. We knocked on doors, asked for votes, and offered rides to the voting places.
Now I set and read on the internet to see how bad things are. Can’t bitch to much because in actuality I am not involved.
Top Back Refresh