Why must something that makes so much sense face so much opposition?
Welcome to American politics. Proportional representation is the only
way to go with the Electoral College, but America's two major parties
are standing in the way (again). After reading the following article, give your two cents on the author's proposal or, better yet, offer your own idea to fix the Electoral College!
How to cure the Electoral College
I like the author's proposed idea because it makes sure that everyone's vote actual counts, and isn't just ignored because of the winner-takes-all method. But, I find it hard to believe that we could get all 50 states to agree to his method since the current state elector system isn't even agreed upon by all the states (with Nebraska and Maine being the odd ones out). And even if we were able to get everyone to agree on something, we would be better off attempting to make an amendment, since his proposition is really just a work around with the old system and not a completely new one.
ReplyDeleteI like the author's idea, but I think the reality is that the new system would be adopted by very few states, if any at all.
Matthew Stewart Period 2
Creating an election based on the popular vote creates a whole new set of issues. First, this is only the 2nd time since 1888 that the popular vote didn't decide the President, so a rush to change the system is premature. Second, this would allow candidates to focus on a few regions to win the elections, and allow large states to single handedly decide the presidency. For example, under the popular vote a candidate could win California and the more populated North East and win the election while ignoring all the interests of the South and Middle States and vice versa, simply because their population would be enough to win the Presidency. The Electoral college forces candidates to take into account all states or at least most states' interests while campaigning for the Presidency.
ReplyDeleteOmar Moiz Period 2
The author offers good points in reforming the electoral college in progression to put more meaning towards the "People's" votes rather than solely the Electoral College. In contrast, to amass the amount of support that would be needed to reform the way voting is counted could be close to unlikely mostly because people aren't informed enough to understand how much their vote should count compared to how much it actually counts in today's elections. The process of proportional voting gives votes to all parties that received votes for the representation of the people allowing 3rd parties more incentive, but lets face it, however much the process may be reformed, a 3rd party presidential victory today with any vote system is almost impossible which makes this matter a subject of how much do the people really care.
ReplyDeleteI think the author provides a good proposition that would stop the wasted vote in todays voting system. A proportional voting process would give a true reflection of what the people want. As for making it a reality, I think certain states need to change first so that others may follow, but the people need to also become more knowledgeable of the effect of their vote in the current system. I think that if enough people are informed, change could be made.
ReplyDeleteJeric Gaddi
Period 3
I honestly don't agree with the electoral college because it truly doesn't represent the people's voice. I am a third party follower and I really don't agree with the fact that they are considered a wasted vote.
ReplyDeleteThere is a quote in the article, "Finally, and perhaps most important in terms of enacting a reform, the EQV formula largely replicates the popular vote outcome without systematically benefiting one political party" To be honest I agree with the proportional system in Europe as opposed to how we run our elections here in the US.
Lauren
Hartogh
period 3
I like the idea of picking up the EQV system since it has many benefits as stated to reform our electoral college without changing it majorly. Except for the fact that more votes will count since America will pick up the popular vote system because this means America is depending more on one person's vote rather than a representative's. This raises concerns of how credible public opinion is and if we can trust one another to select the most suitable person for presidency. For example in the article it says the EQV result favored Clinton in 2016 which means that most people wanted Clinton to win but how does the public know who will be the best qualified president without help from the electoral college.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can see this proposition turning out to be a huge positive, especially for the third party. I am not a huge fan of the Winner-Take-All deal that we as a Nation do now. If this new proposition were to be put in place, I feel that if a vast majority of the states, especially since most are small states, big states will jump along and follow through as well. Not only that, the 3rd party itself wont be the underdog anymore and may have an actual chance of coming out of the shadows and sit in the big seat.
ReplyDeleteGregory James Pullon Jr.
Period 5
I agree with the proportional system for the electoral votes . I believe that it a more fair form of representing the actual voice of the people and all parties and not just democrat and republican parties. I agree with the article that way it would lead to voice of the people and not having to worry about third parties not having a chance .
ReplyDeleteLuz Cabada
Period 2
I really like the idea of implementing the EQV system as I'm strongly opposed to the winner take all strategy. As a supporter of a 3rd party however, I dont see how this will help third parties aside from just getting representation in the college. If were being realistic, how likely is it that a 3rd party would even receive a majority of the electoral votes? Yes, this may raise 3rd party voter turnout as the realization that their vote counts, would motivate them to hit the polls. However, in comparison to the two major parties, the percentage of 3rd party votes in the popular vote would be slim. Adding some 3rd party votes to the electoral college isn't going to flip the system on its back and spark change for 3rd party candidates. I like the idea but something more drastic would need to be proposed and I'm honestly not sure if our country is ready to ditch our winner take all idea.
ReplyDeleteNoah Rico
Period 5
I like the author's idea of proposing that electoral votes be awarded in direct proportion to each candidate’s share of the states’ popular vote. Through this method, the electoral votes could be a better representation of what the American voters wanted but still isn't "purely a popular vote" like the author said. On the basis of efficiency and the topic of how to improve the way the American President is chosen, I think that this alternative can be not only pragmatic but also effective.
ReplyDeleteAmani Ali
Period 2
Creating a new type of election based on direct democracy creates a whole set of issues such making uninformed choices and tyranny of the minority by the majority. Looking through the decades since the United States was formed I found that this has been the 2 time since 1888 that the popular vote did not win the presidency. Lastly, I think that this system the author wants will never come to reality because it is simply asking too much of a hard working person who is trying to make a living to find out who the next president should be when in reality not all of us have the time to keep up to date on what is happening around the word effecting the United States. When there are Government employees who we are paying through taxes to make the correct choice for us.
ReplyDeleteImran Jalal
Period 3
It's evident that the electoral college needs to get fixed. Yet, I am also still wondering why it faces so much opposition. The proportional system should be adopted because the people need to truly have a say in what is decided. It's also a compromise. The article clearly says that "the EQV scheme is a neutral compromise between the electoral college and the national popular vote, each of which has a clear tendency to favor one of the two major political parties over the other." I don't understand why the two major political parties are still standing in the way when this system still allows them to be dominant.
ReplyDeleteI like the EQV formula because I think it is better at representing who each individual is voting for and makes their vote count. I think it could possibly draw more people out to vote too because people might feel as though their vote matters more then it originally would with the electoral college. The EQV also doesn't completely get rid of the electoral college but simply makes it more equal to the popular vote.
ReplyDelete-Kaleigh McCloskey, Period:2
The author’s proposal to reform the Electoral College is evidently good as it would increase state influence and resolve the issue regarding tight races. Further evidence of the reform’s utility is noted within the success of the European election process. If America were to leave the winner takes all system for a proportional distributed Electoral College, the U.S. would be following in the footsteps of other democratic nations. In spite of the reform’s benefits it lacks appeal from the most important individuals, the policy makers themselves. Their unwillingness to reform the Electoral College is similar to their inability to discuss a cut in pay grade. As self-interested beings, politicians and political parties feel there is no need to compromise especially since they are currently reaping the benefits of office. In the end, reform is unlikely until a new power arises and becomes comfortable with the idea of minority parties playing a more active role in American politics. Robert Snyder Period 2
ReplyDeleteI believe that the current system of the Electoral College does not truly reflect the opinions of the people. This system moves us further away from our true democratic principles. The proposed system of proportional representation in the electoral votes better suits our needs and reflects our principles and the voice of the people of the United States. This would also give a bigger role to the third parties which are currently suppressed under the 2 majority parties.
ReplyDelete- Gursimran Bains (Period 3)
The EQV formula is an interesting idea to say the least. While the current system is certainly laughable, I'm not sure the EQV would be the best way to fix it, seeing as it puts the entirety of the electoral voting process on the shoulders of the people. While in theory this may sound good, I believe completely that John Q. Public would create many swings and problems, and that it has a tendency to get easily overpowered and controlled by simple majorities and factions. I personally believe the EQV system is a good idea to look at to begin forming a basis, though would like more power outside of the popular vote than within it.
ReplyDeleteHunter Mittelstaedt
Period 3
The author does present a good point in reforming the Electoral College, and I do agree with the idea of distributing electoral votes based on the candidate’s popularity. I like the idea that every party gets some electoral votes, and it would allow some recognition for the Third Parties. However, I do see how this method could be problematic. One main argument against the author’s proposition is that it may be difficult for all states to agree in the new idea. With the exception of Nebraska and Maine, every state follows the current system we go by. Some states that are heavily Democratic or Republic may be more reluctant to change to this proposal, which makes it difficult for me to see this going forward. Also, even though the Third Parties do receive some votes, it won’t really make a huge impact. The majority of the country is Democratic and Republic, so giving the Third Party candidates, for example, .33 points, wouldn’t do anything in the election. Yes, they got some votes, but does it really make it harder for the two main parties to win the election? I do like the idea of distributing the electoral votes, but I’m still pretty skeptical on it.
ReplyDelete-Kennedy Madrid P.5
Obviously, the current plurality system that America uses has its flaws; and I believe adopting the EQV system the author described could help alleviate some modern problems within our system. With the use of the "winner takes all" approach, each state can only choose one candidate even if said candidate doesn't win the popular vote. In our current voting ways, the people hardly have any power but with the new EQV, the popular vote is part of the foundation for winning. The EQV proposal allows for a proportional system where each candidate gets the percentage of representation that they earn in each state. If the plurality system has caused elections to be based solely on the twelve swing states, then why do the other thirty-eight states continue to stay on this corrupt system? Through the Tenth Amendment, the states have the right to switch their voting system, for example Nebraska and Maine, so why have so many states continued to use the plurality system instead of a proportional one?
ReplyDelete-Madison Rhind p. 3
I think it's an interesting proposal of the EQV and I think it would be something I'd advocate. However, I highly doubt that states would make an effort to see this idea through for the same reason as to why we don't use the proportional system for the representatives we elect. I believe that although it maintains the objective of increasing the fairness of the election, I think many would prefer sticking to the system they are comfortable with and already favoring.
ReplyDeleteLyndsey Chu, P2
I definitely agree with the authors argument. The electoral college is inefficient as more people are unhappy than satisfied with the results. The EQV system presented in the article would allow better representation of all the parties people support. With this system more people would be motivated to vote if they knew that had a chance to make a difference. The current system we have negates millions of votes and can give reason to why voter turnout has been low. However, I think this system would be very hard to implement as each state would have to adopt it. Most people do not even see the problem with our voting system which makes its harder to change. I myself today learned how the electoral college worked. All in all, I believe the system presented in the article would benefit us but would be very hard to attain.
ReplyDeletep.3
DeleteI think as a nation we should really consider altering the electoral college system so that it is based on proportions. Today's system has it so that the electoral votes correlate with the state's populous vote- the winner-takes-all concept. However, in doing so, takes away the impact of citizens' votes. The people living in solid blue/red states would have a slim chance of even changing this distribution, causing the candidates to focus their attention less on these and smaller states and more on the swing states. If the electoral college were to vote based on the proportional allocation system like in Europe, that holds the people's votes higher in value, that meant that the citizens earned the amount of representational, electoral votes they called for in that state. In the end, a system such as this encourages the formation of overlooked third parties and active voting for the people, knowing that their vote would actually be effective. Overall, the system proposed by the author makes more sense to me, by being just for the people rather than the winner-take-all concept.
ReplyDelete(Charlize Villamin-De Leon, Per. 2)
I believe that these changes to the electoral college would definitely improve our issue of representation regarding presidential elections. However, it would put a lot more power into the hands of citizens in the popular vote. I'm not entirely sure if this aspect would be beneficial or not, especially considering that some people are easily influenced by the media or peers, or suffer from a lack of information in general. I also believe that making these changes would be easier said than done, and not just because it is difficult to amend the Constitution. It would be a rough transition for the states to go about this new process, especially because not all people will support the proportional system. Overall, the idea to fix the electoral college is appealing, but I don't think there would be enough support for it to actually make the changes stated in the article.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Wagner
Period 2
I like the EQV system much better than the electoral system that we currently have. I think it is a huge improvement over the electoral college by providing a more accurate reflection of the popular vote. I do feel though that we should have a system even more reflective of public opinion. We have had two elections within the last twenty years where a candidate who has won the popular vote and lost the election. If the people chose a candidate for president and that candidate does not win I feel as though that is a great injustice.
ReplyDeleteChandler Sallaberria P.3
I actually agree with the author’s proposal that the EQV system would be a good replacement for the electoral college. With our current system 3rd parties have absolutely no chance of getting any electoral votes. If you live in Texas or California, your vote does not even matter because California is a democratic state and Texas is a Republican state. In all states voting for a third party is a wasted vote. If we allocated the electoral college votes to each party based on proportion of popular vote won than all the votes would gain more weight and the interests of the people would be better represented. The 3rd parties would have more power and they won’t be as easily ignored. It’s entirely unreasonable that if only 45.4% of the pop vote went to the Republican party that all the state’s votes go to that party since less than half the state is in favor.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Campos Period 5
With times changing and the American population forming a more unique sense of political ideology, a change to the electoral college could be in order. The new system, as proposed by the author, allows for those with views that do not particularly side with either of the two major parties to have a voice. Also, third-party support appears to be growing, and this allows for them to have a shot at representation in the national government. Unfortunately, such an adaption is extremely difficult for Congress to accept and the traditional American population, but with the change-seeking up-and-coming generations, the new EQV system has a shot.
ReplyDeleteLainey Gerber
period 5
I think the EQV system is a step in the right direction, but if I were a governor o a state, I don't know if it would be the step I would take. I just don't feel certain about how it would turn out among the people. Part of me thinks this doubt may be a result of my lack of knowledge on the topic, but my first concern with implementing a system like the EQV is a division among the people by faction rather than ideology. I can imagine a system like this would cause more divisions among the people due to strict loyalty to particular factions rather than differences between people due to ideology. I believe the EQV is a feasible proposal, but there is some uneasiness I feel when speculating about bringing it to fruition.
ReplyDeleteEmmanuel Mintah, P. 3
To be quite honest, I have no idea why we still use the Electoral College system in the present. While the idea was appropriate for the time when the founding fathers were governing, we live in an entirely different world with a better educated population and high tech voting systems. One would think that we would have adapted to the times by now, and yet, we are still stuck to an outdated system. Changing the electoral college system to the EQV would give proper representation to each candidate no matter what state that vote is cast in, and give third party candidates a voice in government. While it would be difficult to adapt to the change, the system would also more accurately cast votes based off the people's voice and thought, and less on the state's stance on politics.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Vista
Pd.5
In all honesty, I see no real purpose of a 3rd party at all. Even though it has the possibility of being a "spoiler party" it serves absolutely no purpose except that. All things aside I don't think that electing a candidate on popular vote is a very safe idea or a very effective on at that. Even relying on the population vote for the senators and whatnot is a shakey at best. Therefore, it would become too difficult to get enough support to even change it so in reality it isn't an effective policy even though it is highly tempting to change it. But it is a fleeing moment.
ReplyDeleteAlexia Tejeda
P.3
I also am in favor of the EQV system. I have one questions though- would this need to have the constitution amended or is it something that states can decide on employing tomorrow if they wanted? Either way, we saw in this last presidential election how nonsensical the role of the electoral college was and something needs to happen to change that. Also, a system such as the EQV system would increase efficacy, seeing as that citizens will feel that their vote may actually count and that they didn't make the effort to vote for nothing.
ReplyDelete-Jumana Roufail, Period 2
I definitely agree with the idea of this new system proposed by the author. Although our current system may have been more efficient in the past, I believe that it's time for change, especially with the last election in mind. The EQV system gives representation to big and small states and ensures each has a voice in elections. In addition, it gives third parties the potential to make a difference in the results. This is vital considering the lack of representation they currently have. The EQV system also pays more attention to the popular vote. I understand it would be difficult to make the change from our current system to the EQV system but in the end, I do believe it would be beneficial for years to come.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Johnson-P.2
The author's EQV system seems rational compared to our winner-takes-all method that we have currently. This way it would be more fair and our votes might mean a little more than they do now. When we first talked about Europe's proportional system, I liked the idea because everyone, including the third parities, got some sort of representation. Parties would also become more competitive trying to gain as many voters as possible. However it would be nearly impossible to get the nation on board with this idea even though it sounds reasonable. We've used our current system to determine the president for so long that just thinking of changing it would seem unamerican to many.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Inouye P.3
I think that the author's proposition is a good one carefully considering that everyone will get a vote that will actually matter and opposed to the winner take all system. However, I don't believe that all of the states will agree to this new system because not even all states agree to the current system. But if this system were to be agreed upon through a possible amendment than it would provide equal representation to all.
ReplyDeleteJames lee per 3
I think the EQV system is a good idea, or at least definitely a step in the right direction. The somewhat contradictory results of the most recent presidential election have many people reevaluating what seems to be an unfair electoral system, and while not a purely direct popular vote, the EQV system would remedy some of the systematic flaws that actually can influence the outcome of our presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteJulia Hernandez P.3
As nice as it would be to have an EQV system, I don't see this as an attainable feat, at least not anytime soon, unless there is dramatic education and activism, and for the same reason that Cav mentioned earlier, it would mean to go against the two largest political factions, on top of changing the rest of the general public's opinions. The EQV system has a lot of upsides as the article states such as it mirrors the popular vote (and in doing so it wold encourage people to vote) and gives weight to the 3rd party platform in terms of representation, since now the 2 larger parties would need to consider and unite with smaller parties, addressing the concerns of many more. However, I also consider just how reliable public opinion is, though cynical to say this, just how educated are the decisions of everyday Americans? More eloquently put, like FDR said "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."
ReplyDelete-Rebecca Covarrubias
p.5
I believe that the winner take all system that we have now is extremely illogical and unfair. Similar to what was said in class its uncool that essentially only swing states decide the president because the remaining states are firm Republicans/Democrats. The idea that votes for a Republican in Democratic states and vice versa would now matter seems to be a better option compared to what we have now as it will better allow the voice of the people to be heard. However, I do not understand how the EQV is not equivalent to the popular vote (even though the article gave an example)if a proportional amount of the people's vote is reflected in the electoral college votes. Also, although this seems like a great idea I don't think it would ever become a reality because of how rooted in tradition we can often be.
ReplyDelete(p. 3)
The EQV system would seem much more fair than the current winner takes all system if it could be feasibly implemented. Currently, it seems that public opinions don't match the election fairly, as with a plurality, a major party could easily have more then half the country oppose them and still win. 3rd parties would also have fair representation and the major parties would have to start catering to everybody rather than a select amount of voters that they know will get them the votes. It will increase competitiveness among elections which will make the public more useful unlike now where votes not to the major two parties are throwaway votes. Proportional elections should equate to proportional approval among the public.
ReplyDeleteRyan Cain Per. 3
The author's proposal on the EQV system appears to be a logical method of amending the electoral college system. To me, our current system is outdated and inefficient, as "blasphemous" as that may seem to many Americans. The electoral college system's "winner-take-all" holds numerous disadvantages such as the disenfranchisement of millions, and the focus of candidates in campaigning in only large and competitive "swing" states. The proposed EQV system seems to provide a method that eliminates these problems, because by providing a proportional allocation of electoral votes in all 50 states, each individual vote may have more of an impact on the outcome of the election, and forces candidates to campaign equally in all of the states. This method, which is similar to the system in many European countries today, provides for an outcome that is more reflective of the national opinion on who should become our president. Though the implementation of such a reform would be extremely unlikely today, it is a step in the right direction to amending a clearly flawed system.
ReplyDeleteGianna Apoderado
Period 5
I think the EQV system would work well in place of the system we currently have. After becoming aware of the fact that in the US only the swing vote states have the biggest impact on the election and that in most states, such as California, it is basically pre-determined to be a Democratic or Republican vote, in this case Democratic, is completely unfair. The author even described this system as a reform and adjustment to the Electoral College and their not trying to scrap the whole process. Changing our voting process into a more proportional system would benefit, and most importantly, represent the entire population in a fair manor in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteJocelyn Ayers p: 3
I believe that the proportional system can turn out to be a positive thing especially for third parties. The Winner-Takes-All deal that we have now in our nation is personally to me, a negative thing. Third parties have no chance at a path to victory with this deal. The proportional system will be more of a fair form in representing the voice and the votes of the people in all the parties that are present instead of just the two parties, Democrats and Republicans. We won't have to worry about the third parties not having a chance at all.
ReplyDeleteClay Reyes
p.2
Personally I do not agree with the process of the electoral college today. As the author clearly states that the equal distribution of votes to the individual candidates would greatly improve the process and outcome of each individual candidate. Not only will it diminish the winner-takes-all method in states, but the problems created and presented by this method which have hindered the morality of the people. I am still confused as to why change may improve the electoral college, either direct or winner-takes-all elections do not guarantee presidency to a particular party.
ReplyDeleteSabrina Amador
P.3
I think the author's proposition is a valid one because it would prevent any wasted votes. A proportional voting process gives a true reflection of what the people really want. In order to allow this change to happen people would need to be more knowledgeable of their current system and understand the importance of having the EQV system which influences our presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteKaren Girgis
P.2
I think this "cure" offers better representation of the people making the two big dog parties to know try to appease more of the people and not just they're supporters. This would then cause more competition within an election due to the fact that now more of the people's vote matters and now each candidate, even third parties, would do more to get your vote. This even gives the people more of a voice now that our vote can really make more of a difference causing candidates to reach out to us more. I like this and I think we should make this a thing as quick as possible.
ReplyDelete- Justin Andal per. 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't believe all the states would, I agree with the author's statement. With the WTA, the 3rd Party doesn't stand a chance in getting any electoral votes nor any representation due to two major Parties above it. The WTA also has the disadvantage of disenfranchisement of many voters. Even if it's only a little bit, with the EQV, it might help the 3rd Party at least gain some electoral votes by encouraging the voters to vote and that their vote do count will give them representation and to smaller states as well.
ReplyDeleteSara Arviso Period 5
I personally am not a huge fan of the electoral college. I believe the EQV system is much better because it gives accurate representation to the people by distributing representation proportionally. This gives the people a bigger voice in politics rather than the winner take all method. I understand that one of the founding fathers’ concerns was that the people would not be able to make a wise or educated choice when voting. Under the EQV system, the people are still not directly choosing the president, but this provides for better representation of the people.
ReplyDeleteViviana Nunez
P.5
I don't think proportional representation solves anything. Proportional representation gives the more power to the people; the article even states that "the danger that the president would be chosen in a manner even further removed from a direct vote - by the House of Representatives." But didn't the Framers write the Constitution so that the people had very little power? With social media, it's even more possible for the people to be filled with falsehoods spread by others and to be influenced by mass sentiments. This is especially true in the last election where candidates were using scandals up until the last moments to influence voter.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Lu
Period 2
I like the idea that the author wants to make sure the people's vote is accounted for but moving or adopting the EQV system does not seem like a good idea. To me it is confusing on how it works and it doesn't seem like it would have accurate outcomes. The author states that in 2002 Bush would have still won but in 2016 Clinton would have won and that doesn't make sense to me because both Trump and Bush did not win the popular votes but the electoral votes. So wouldn't they be similar outcomes? Personally, I do not think we need to change(adopt the EQV system) or get rid of the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteAbeegail Meyer p.3
I personally think that the EQV system is a much better system than the winner take all method because it just doesn't seem fair to me that only on party gets the win when theres people that support other parties and feel that their party doesn't have a say or a fair opportunity. But I do see that there will be a huge struggle to get people to change the way electorcal votes are done. We already have two states that don't go along with the rest of the states way of sending their votes, to add this new way of system would split more states and doing things differently
ReplyDelete-jhosseline urias
I support the author's idea of the EQV system taking the place of the current electoral college system. The current system takes the power away from the people and puts it in the hands of electors; which isn't very democratic. The EQV system would give voters more power and therefore make them feel much more important. In states such a California and Texas the voters feel as though their votes do not matter at all, so some just don't vote. With the new system each vote would matter and the people would feel more empowered to go, probably increasing turnout and creating a higher sense of efficacy. Another reason I support the EQV system is because it gives more power for third party nominees to actually stand a chance against the main two. Rather than them simply being a "spoil party". I support this idea 100%, but I know that it won't be happening anytime soon. It would ultimately be difficult to get all the states on board and willing to enact this system. The only way for this system to be truly successful would be through an amendment to the Constitution. This means there would need to be a majority of the Congress (Yes, the solely 2-party Congress with no third party representative anywhere in sight) and state legislators that agree... and we all know how hard that is.
ReplyDeleteSharen Moniqca
Period 2
Personally, I like the idea of an EQV system as it seems to be a better representative measure of the people's vote, seen how Clinton won the popular vote but Trump won the electoral college. I could be wrong, but from my understanding of this, this could also encourage voters to come out, knowing that their vote actually counts, such as us Californians. But I'd be curious to see if this would ever be pursued on a national level.
ReplyDeleteParis Barraza
P2
I agree with the author’s proposal because it takes everyone’s vote into account. The EQV system would motivate more people to vote because they know their vote would actually count and they would have a chance to make a difference. The winner-take-all method that we have now is unfair and it is clear that citizens’ votes do not have a very big impact. However, it would be very difficult to get all 50 states to agree to this system. Not all states agree on the system we have now. Even though the system explained in the article would be a better option, it would be very hard to get everyone on board.
ReplyDeleteJuliann Salinas, Period 2
Through the culmination of this article's information as well as my initial biases, I have concluded that personally I would much rather prefer an EQV system. With the implementation of this system we would do away with the "winner takes all" ideology of the electoral college and in turn electoral votes would be allocated justly. Americans would also get to witness the full potential of presidential candidates as they would no longer have the luxury of simply writing off states they already perceive the outcome of. Lastly, in regards to the people, every electoral vote would count encouraging a greater voter turnout, and in turn causing the overall final results to provide a clearer representation of everyones opinion on the matter.
ReplyDeleteKenechi Ikeanyi (Period 5)
I agree with the author’s proposal of the EQV because it is more reasonable than the Electoral College. The EQV would not hurt states by any mean but it would be much more beneficial because candidates would have to work harder in certain areas of the state to gain their votes. And third parties campaigns would not all go to waste and they would at least get some recognition. However, it is understandable how changing the system from Electoral College to EQV would be controversial because most people in America want to keep tradition and do not want change. But without change how could America move forward? Other countries do not have an Electoral College that directly elects the executive president which should tell us that other countries are much more advanced and moving forward than us. Yet in the end, like the article said in the beginning that changing the system would be difficult which is why there would be no change for the Electoral College anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Lor Period 5
The EQV system does appeal to me, as it seems to be a much better system than the one today. I feel like todays system does not properly represent the public, whereas this new system would better represent their interests. This would even give 3rd parties a much better chance and allow parties to stand for what they stand for, and not just appeal to another with lies in order to get the 3rd party voter to switch. I do not feel as though this will go through very easily though, as the government will see this as a threat by allowing tyranny of the majority.
ReplyDeleteAshley Quintana
P.3
I think the proposition by the author would be a benefit for how the Electoral College is run so people who do vote and identify as 3rd party don't get disregarded as a waste vote. The European system is much better at allowing all voices to be heard rather than like 45% of people in a state, especially considering people would vote either Republican or Democrat. This way, 3rd party voters can be represented, and also, if there is a close tie between democrats and republicans there can be a fair amount of representatives for that state.
ReplyDeleteRyan Van Balen, P.5
I whole heartedly agree with the author of this article. Having a proportional system of votes for the electoral college is a way to make every person's vote matter. Winner-takes-all ignores any person who didn't vote for that winner and in many states the winner is already predetermined, which lowers many voter's efficacy. If electoral college votes were distributed proportionally based on the popular vote more people would feel heard in small and large states alike. This could increase the problem of low voter turn out that we read and talked about last chapter. I think that having a direct popular election is the best way to choose our president, but seeing as it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, this is the next best option.
ReplyDeleteClaire Williams p. 3
While the EQV formula is certainly interesting, but better than the current Electoral College system in place right now. It has come to my mind just how this system would come to fruition as smaller states such as Montana only having about 5 electoral should you only gain 1 full vote after 20% of their population has voted for you or is it a system merely split over the number of of electoral votes divided by the population of people that voted? In any case such a system would hurt both candidates as they could lose whole state electoral votes such as Clinton in California where now she would only be getting a little bit more than half the 55 electoral votes and Trump would essentially be gaining the rest. Now the overarching problem of the EQV would be that the presidency is no longer decided by the 270 margin and is now a winner-takes-all election no longer in the form of popular vote for electoral votes, but electoral votes determining the presidency and no matter how I look at this, this system is only INCREASING the power of the spoiler vote as 3rd parties will now directly be gaining electoral votes not nearly enough to win presidency, but more than enough to destroy the whole presidential race. This is as far as I've thought and it definitely leads me to believe the EQV has many chinks and underlying problems it must sooth over before it can reach practicality.
ReplyDelete-Jesse Nkemere p.3
I believe the author of this article offers good reasons and points. The main focus of his proposition is to make the people's votes count more than they do in the electoral college. But the reality of the matter is that no state will support this plan. It would create new problems and it would not benefit either one of the two major parties. It would need a huge amount of support to be passed. Honestly we are better off staying with the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteRafael Cabrera (period:5)
The self-interest between two major parties lies at the heart of this problem. The electoral college is the bread and butter of both the democratic and republican party. The EQV system would no longer protect the inherited power of the two biggest factions of America. Personally, I hate the way that they only have to campaign in highly populated "swing" states because they are guaranteed votes in other states. If winning is ever guaranteed, is their a competition in the first place? To me, that type of campaigning symbolizes their comfortable stronghold on American politics. In this past election alone, all I have seen is mudslinging, biased public opinion, and political polarization like never before. I have heard very little of the way our government plans to collaborate and address the needs of the nation as a whole. Contrary to what one may think, I don't even believe THEY even appreciate their stronghold on American politics. Their inherited power from the electoral college has no feature to suppress the millions of Americans wanting to be represented. Both parties have felt the unrest of the American people to this unfair system. Good. "Lets keep sticking it to 'em!"
ReplyDelete*biased public opinion because of biased media
DeleteAmen brother!!!!!!!
DeleteI totally agree with this, good stuff Sebastian.
DeleteAs much as the proposal of the EQV proportional system intrigues me I am still somewhat skeptical because it does not necessarily cure the Two-party system, rather it gives the people a sense of involvement which to me is almost a false sense. The reason I say this is because although these other 3rd parties would become more involved and active their contribution to the overall outcome of the election would still remain marginal at best. On the other hand by implementing this system could possibly influence a growth in the smaller parties but the extent would be nowhere near enough to put a 3rd party in office. The plus to this system would be that candidates would be forced to campaign harder even in the bigger and more typical "Red or Blue" states in order to receive more of these smaller parties support, that in turn would require them to cater to some of their policies. All in all the proposal is interesting to say the least and it might be worth a shot to help Americans be more involved.
ReplyDeleteIsaac Addai
P.3
This Guy's so intellectual ^
DeleteShut up he's a moron
DeleteThe author's EQV system is a much better alternative to the current Electoral College system that we use. The EQV system provides a more fair way of electing the President, because the actual opinions of the people are taken in. It is evident through the concept of plurality, where the true majority of the people (51%) does not need to be achieved in order to win the presidency, that the public opinion did not really matter to the founding fathers. The Electoral College, and the idea of plurality and winner takes all associated with it, is outdated and do not fit the needs of Americans today as efficiently as they did during the days of our founding fathers. This change will not be easy for the states to adjust to and will not be quick. Many states will oppose this idea and stick to the traditional method, and reform will be a long process.
ReplyDeleteSaketh Sadhu, p.3
I agree with the system that each electoral vote will be given to the state who had popular vote. The electoral votes can be a better way but not only the popular vote. This would give what the people want. However I think some states need to change its way and then maybe we can get this process going.
ReplyDeleteEthan Aurangzeb
Per.2
the electoral college isn't as effective as it's meant to be; it's unfair. in my oooo ion, the proportional system is much more adequate in that it gives everyone a more equal chance rather than grouping leftovers into one major group. i agree w the author in saying that a proportional system is the way to go when it comes to voting. maybe that's the reason voter turn out kind sucks but oh well
ReplyDeletenicole per.2
Deletethat's meant to say opinion not ooo ion
DeleteThe idea of an EQV system does appear to be a more efficient way of representation. Our current plurality system "winner takes all" method does not make sense. Splitting votes based on the number of people that choose a certain candidate helps everyone vote in who they want. Small states will not be ignored, and presidential candidates would apply more effort to securing votes for themselves. This will leave people thinking that their vote does count. Switching to an EVQ system might just be worth all the effort.
ReplyDeleteTaking a more European stance on voting might help the United States become more democratic.
Maya Domozetska
Period
the idea of the EQV system sounds fantastic because every vote would actually count towards someone instead of being a wasted vote on say a 3rd party. the only problem I see is the fact that some of the states may not agree on this method as some don't agree on our current method (@ maine and Nebraska). so although it sounds good on paper the trouble would be putting this into action which may be unlikely anytime soon.
ReplyDelete- ethan Cisneros
Deleteperiod 5
Recreating the electoral vote to mirror the popular vote actually sounds very beneficial in terms of the mass' desire for more voice and representation and though it seems a bit too idealistic, it's a much better method than the one we use currently, which seems to disregard popular vote almost altogether.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a very complex and strenuous process to amend the process of the electoral vote, but it would definitely be a morale boost for voters and will hopefully boost feelings of increased voter efficacy.
Sharon Park, P.5 sorry!
DeleteI agree with the author of the article. This EQV system looks like a proper solution to the decreasing value of the votes of the citizen that the "winner takes all" idea causes. This would further cause an increase in voter turnout due to the fact that people will know that their votes, whether their candidate wins or loses the election, will surely have an effect in the polls.
ReplyDeleteChris Jordan, P.3
Quite frankly, I don't know how to criticize this article's plan. It seems to be a great plan that satisfies both major parties and could possibly even give third-parties an even greater spoiler role, considering that EQVs are very precise, and even a hundredth of an EQV or so could theoretically ruin a candidate; third-parties can use this role to their advantage and form coalitions with major parties to ensure some of their agenda.
ReplyDeleteI can honestly see some benefits out of this system. Because candidates now have to appeal nationwide to get as many popular votes as possible to tilt the EQVs in their favor, they may have to take a more moderate approach. This may solve the increasing radicalization of both major parties in my eyes and help increase voter turnout since their vote now matters, and because major parties that have moved to moderate policy may give people more incentive to vote since a party now better reflects their own ideology.
Arthur Kim
period 3
I strongly support using the proportional system over the winner-takes-all idea due to the fact that it keeps from the repetitive favoring of one party, usually always being a Democrat or Republican. I feel this system would encourage more people to vote because many voters live in states where the outcome is clear way before elections have closed, making them feel their vote wouldn't be effective. Distributing votes in this manner would actually give third parties representation that they don't get to have because of the electoral college. I, overall, favor this idea because it would actually make the people's votes count and candidates would get their deserved share of votes.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Gonzalez Period 2
I agree with the author that the current system of winner take all in the electoral college doesn't accurately represent the vote of the people. The EQV system suggested by the author seems to be a great compromise of not totally getting rid of the electoral college, but still creating a more equal system. The main problem though, with changing the electorale college, is the stubbornness of the Republican and Democratic party of keeping their power. A member of either of the two main parties, which pretty much all goverent officials are, would never support a movement to take away their party's guaranteed electoral votes. This makes it nealy impossible to bring about change in the electoral system.
ReplyDeleteSeth Casas P. 5
I personally understand the reasoning behind why we chose this electoral college system by the way you(Mr. Cav.) explained but the fact is, we are not the same government we were 200 years ago and more likely than not, it might be time for a change. This EQV system seems like the smarter more modern way of electing our officials by dividing the number or electoral colleges by percent of popular vote; if there are 10 electoral colleges available a candidate that received 50% of the popular vote would be awarded 5 elec. colleges. etc..
ReplyDeleteThis system allows everyone, even third parties to feel relevant and could possibly raise the voter turnout. So, to summarize everything, i completely agree with the author on how our electoral colleges should be distributed.
-Dorian Cardoza, Per. 5
I believe that is absolutely crucial for the Electoral College to be discontinued. It's initial purpose was to ensure "fairness"; however, in today's America, the conflict in regards to fairness is largely outdated. Allowing the people to actually choose the president would restore their faith in the government and it would also give other parties (omitting the republicans and the democrats) a fair chance in regards to acquiring real representation. For so long, parties that are not Red or Blue have been intentionally singled out and given little to no chance in actually gaining momentum in the political race. It is time for the very fundamentals of the voting process to be changed in a way that would favor the opinions of the people. Implementing the EQV system would be a huge step in the right direction; however, in order for real change to occur, we must work together and fuel a movement that would actually allow that change to occur.
ReplyDelete-Andrés Garcia (period 5)
The idea of the EQV system is a wonderful idea. I believe if something isn't broke then don't fix it, but obviously there is something going wrong with the electoral college as a whole already proven by at least the 2000 election and the past years election. Equal representation would benefit the people as a whole, the people would most likely have a higher feel of both internal and external efficacy talking about the government, so more people would go to the polls. More change would be able to happen much quicker and more precisely. But I believe this would take the states themselves starting this way of electing officials and showing the good qualities of it and hoping it eventually spreads. And once it spreads then take it to the amendment process and make all of our legislative magic happen and to finally amend our dreaded electoral college. Our people want to be represented, yes the electoral college worked well originally for our forefathers, but why not let the people get more involved and see where it goes from there? It doesn't hurt to try and it surely doesn't hurt to work out the wrinkles at state or city levels first to then take the finished product to go through the amendment process. This will take a lot of work, I'm not saying that it is impossible to achieve we would just need effort from the right places to finally have this movement go forward.
ReplyDelete-Will Montgomery p.2
This proposal seems beneficial in my opinion. By using this EQV the population can be represented according to percentage. This way the votes actually have more value especially in larger states such as California and Texas. In addition to that candidates now have to work with every state and appeal to the majority rather then "count on" the vote of heavily Democratic or Republican states. In addition to that this can help 3rd parties obtain more power by allowing them to maybe win a few electoral votes. They might not win the presidency but now they might have to cooperate with the Dems and Reps so that some of their ideas can be incorporated in the larger party system since the Reps and Dems need more then half of the electoral votes to win. This in turn can create a broader ideology within the parties allowing moderates to have a voice rather then just pure democratic or pure republican ideas.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Tong
Period 5
I agree that the electoral college is very flawed and that an EVQ system is heading in the right direction because it gives a solid representation of the popular vote. The EVQ system also gives the voting process a lot more meaning in states that are party strongholds such as Texas and New York and gives 3rd parties a fair chance in the election.
ReplyDeleteAndy Garcia
P.2
The Electoral College is quite an outdated way of going about these elections; there is no way to win or even have a fair chance of putting up good numbers for these 3rd parties. 150-200 years ago this method worked fine and was "fair" but now there is no reason we, the people, shouldn't push towards this EQV system; a much more modern and equal way of running elections.
ReplyDeleteArturo Escamilla
P.5
Something like a proportional voting amendment would never pass. Your basically asking politicians to give up a little of their power to 3rd parties for the sake of fairness. Most Republicans would laugh in your face at an idea like this (saying something like each party has the ability to win electoral votes) and proportional voting at this time would take more away from Democrats if anything (most of the 3rd parties being out of their own voters). Ideas like this tend to highlight individual party interest. A proportional voting route could, I believe, increase voter turnout (which both parties would complain is a problem). It would increase individual voting efficacy because each vote will increase in its worth compared to a "Winner Takes All" type majority. However it would make an election more difficult to win. I just can't see any of the two major parties giving up power like that, it's asinine. Why make it harder for yourself? We can talk about how unfair it is but this country wasn't built to be truly inherently fair. It was built to work, in a time period were it was fated to fail. The framers weren't perfect but they worked with what they were given. The populous weren't written to be as part of this process as we are today. No unless people want to overthrow the American government theirs not much we can say to changing how electoral votes work. At the end of the day it's still states rights, however for it to work all the states would have to change to proportional (which is unlikely for red states to do). All we can really do at this point is be like the framers and work with what we got.
ReplyDelete-Michael Diamreyan
DeleteI also agree with many of my peers. I am in favor of the EQV system as it seems to be far more representative of the population. This system also gives third parties representation in congress. However, due to the complications that come with amending the constitution I doubt it would ever go into effect, especially an amendment as huge as changing the way we elect our president.
ReplyDeleteTariq Nugud
period 3
I agree with the author, even though the process can be tedious it seems to be an advantage to mostly everyone. The Democrats and Republicans should not be the only one who gets benefits there should be a voice from the people and equality to all parties. It does not seem fair to not give the people of the United States the right to elect the president.
ReplyDeleteJosette Yasay Period:2
The author does make an interesting point about using a proportion system rather than a winner take all system. With the EQV system, a candidate gets a proportion of the electoral votes in a state. However, this can lead to making runoff elections more common that lead to the House of Reps. choosing our president. There’s never a definitive answer when it comes to politics as one solution could lead to a new problem. I believe that using a EQV system will only lead to new and unforeseen problems. In my opinion, leaving the electoral college the way it’s already established is the safest way to go.
ReplyDeleteJob Kimani
Period 5
i think that the EQV system that the article is proposing should slowly be adapted by our government. The idea of awarding electoral votes in direct proportion to each candidate’s share of the states’ popular vote is beneficial for all. This system moves closer to the American principle of democracy by letting the people's vote have a bigger impact on the presidential election. By taking away the winner take all method of the current system, it gives third parties a chance to play a more significant role in the election. This might help increase voter turnout by enabling popular vote to have a greater influence on choosing the next president and people can vote for the party they best identify with, even if it's a third part, knowing that their votes would not be wasted.
ReplyDeletePatricia Molinos period 5
I agree that the way our presidential elections are ran should be reformed. The proportional voting system is much more effective as to carrying out what the people want in terms of who is president. But, I highly doubt that all states would be compliant with changing and basically getting rid of the electoral college. I also feel like the lack of willingness to change stems from many people being uneducated in regards to how their vote should/could count. Even though "the people" are not mentioned in Article II of the constitution, as we read in class today, I strongly believe that we should have been, as presidential policies directly effect us, "the people," the most.
ReplyDeleteAdrianna Sandoval
Period 3
I feel the EQV system is a better alternative than the electoral college system we currently have. The system the author provides is a good compromise that gets rid of the winner takes all mentality of the electoral college and it also allows the individual to feel that their vote actually matters no matter where they live. This can also help bring vote turnout now that most citizens will feel that their vote can make a difference. I feel this system would more accurately show who the American people want as president and would be better overall for the country.
ReplyDelete-Wyatt Lemoine Period: 2
I for one agree with the author's idea of proportional allocation scheme. By splitting up the votes by the percentage of party it takes away the idea of one person voting for a party and it doesnt even matter because the state is already swinging in the opposite direction. It gives the parties a larger chance at representation within the electoral college. And another plus side of the EQV formula is that it would give more importance to smaller states. One of the things that stood out to be the most was that the EQV formula would closely represent the popular vote model that occurs along side the electoral college. It expresses to the people that they would have more of a say, due to their votes being split up and the electoral seats being decided by percentage of voters.
ReplyDelete-Chloe' K
I remember reading in the textbook that getting rid of the WTA system the states follow would be difficult to stop because many states benefit from it and it pushes candidates to care about state votes along with popular votes. However, after reading about this proportional-allocation scheme, I see the likelihood of states carrying this out because it gives a larger voice to the states (big or small). This idea makes sense but it most likely poses opposition because the people who always benefit won't want to change it. Also, the system has been around for so many elections that it's almost impossible for people to imagine something different. But, I feel like in the future disenfranchised voters will be a thing of the past. As a nation we will soon see that proportional representation is what we need to accurately reflect what the people called for (even though the Framers didn't even really care).
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Hill
Period 2
With technology increasing and more people advancing to new ideas to create a stronger nation, I believe the electoral college seeks an improvement. The electoral college should be open to all parties and should not base it on this two party system where not everyone will be represented. This EQV system shows that there are other ideas out there that can boost the confidence of those whose ideas can actually prove to be what America needs. Although this system has continued to suffice in how we vote, many are separating themselves and becoming more independent. What is a nation if we can't even be united in making decisions that involve all?
ReplyDeleteMikayla Teves P.5
I agree with the proposition that the author makes in this article. An EQV or proportional system for deciding presidents just seems like the natural and more obviously just way to go since everyone is given some form of representation rather than forcing anyone to either cast a “wasted vote” or be forced to compromise their beliefs. It also makes more sense since “the people” have a more prominent and personal role rather than leaving very high percentages of individuals unhappy or disappointed with the way their state votes. Although due to time zone differences electing a president through popular vote seems almost impossible, the idea of a proportional system still feels like a more just way to allow citizens to feel more represented when electing their leader rather than leaving the decision up to very small percentage of people known as electors or worst case scenario, the H.O.R.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the proposal that the author states in this article!! I always found the "winner-takes-all" method of assigning electoral votes to be unfair, because in many cases a majority of voters are unhappy with the results. A proportional or EQV system would help solve the problem of disenfranchised voters and, like the article states, have a lot of benefits! The electoral college has gone so long without any changes, but I think we need to step out of the box and find a solution to an institution that ends up leaving many Americans feeling like their votes don't matter. Not to mention third parties could have a legitimate chance of getting more representation, even if it is just one Congressperson at a time. (It would be better than none). Overall I think the EQV system is a rational and achievable way to reform the Electoral College and make more people feel like their voice matters.
ReplyDeleteAlysa Quijada
p.2
I personally prefer a system in which the electoral college is entirely removed, because I dislike the fact that with an electoral college system it is literally impossible for each vote to have the same weight. Votes in certain states have slightly more weight than others because of the odd way in which we tally up the number of electors each state gets. However, I do understand that this idea is in sharp contrast with the Constitution, so if we must keep the Electoral college I suppose the EQV system would be the most fair. I do not think that Republican voters in blue states like CA should be disenfranchised, and I do not believe that lib voters in red states should also not have their voices heard. To me, this seems like the exact definition of Tyranny of the Majority and seems like the exact thing that the Framers wanted to protect against. Furthermore, I think a EQV system could drastically help third party voters because it could potentially allow their candidates win some electoral votes. More importantly, this would force the two major parties to work to include platforms from third parties in order to increase the number of third party voters who would vote for them. This would maximize the votes of the two major parties while benefitting third party voters because their platforms would be adopted by major party candidates.
ReplyDeleteMadeline Casolari, P.3
The author's proposed idea of having a proportional system would effectively mirror what the majority wants. But is it really possible to change the electoral college? Like you said, Mr. Cavanaugh, it would be a very difficult and strenuous process to have all states agree on almost anything.
ReplyDeleteEQV can be very impactful. If this was put into effect, it would allow voters to feel significantly more powerful in elections, especially to those who support a 3rd party - who would also see an increase in supporters. Besides an increase in 3rd party supporters, maybe we could see an increase in voter turnout?
Giuseppi Pelayo
period 2
I do not agree with the way the electoral college is currently run, as it does not reflect the popular vote. This current system causes people to feel disenfranchised or as if their vote is being wasted. The EQV system would allow for people in each state to get representation and would dispel the idea of a wasted vote, which in turn could cause voter turnout to rise. With this EQV system, people would be able to get more of a voice in deciding the president rather than just leaving it to the 12 swing states every four years.
ReplyDelete-Samira Torna p.3
The problem with our electoral college is that the electors all have partisan bias, as Cavanaugh explained today, certain states already have their votes predetermined. So, this is obviously going to influence the outcome of the election, now either that can be fixed with non-partisan electors being placed in the electoral college, but even then there’s the problem of the states with the “majority vote, winner take all” view of the election. The EQV can really help fix that problem, since it is actually listening to the people, and the people are actually choosing their own leader. Now for the whole “faction-rule” problem, I’m not sure I really understand how that problem can be addressed using the EQV formula, but Im sure there can be a way to go about it, sticking to the EQV.
ReplyDeleteErick Martinez
Period 3
I do believe a proportional system would make more sense and equally represent a stronger population of different opinions. A winner takes all system would only demonstrate chaos and instability because the country would keep shifting according to the "winner's" belief and in the losing side's case, they would feel completely unrepresented. Policy would be to the favor of the other party and this would decrease external efficacy as well, especially if a certain side knew that their opinion would be disregarded if their vote did not matter. This would additionally give the winning side an upper hand unconditionally and weaken the losing side's morale.
ReplyDeleteKyla Wheeler, p. 2
The EQV system seems like a good proposal for reforming the electoral college. All the states have allowed us to vote for who we want to be president so why not give the people a true voice instead overshadowing many other voices. This might also encourage more people to go out to vote because their vote would actually be making a difference. Though it seems like many people want to reform the electoral college, I do not see it happening anytime soon. I think we tend to get stuck on this idea that things can't change because it's always been a certain way but maybe change is something we need. I like the idea but I would want to really understand it before I go shouting to the world that this is the best thing for our country. I do think it's time though to look at other systems other than the one we currently have.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Platero
Period 2
The EQV system would make every vote in a state count while keeping the tradition of electoral points. This small reform to our voting system would give points proportion to the opinions of the voters rather than the all or nothing system. Our electoral college has failed the popular vote of the people on more than one occasion, this is an unacceptable system for government
ReplyDeleteEnrique Menjivar
P.3
I believe that the EQV system would no longer protect the power of the two reigning parties, by doing so this gives the opportunity of third parties to have a seat at the big boy table. Which ultimately gives back the power to the once minorities that were never even given the chance to thrive.To me the electoral college system is outdated and this past election left many seeking answers to questions that didn’t quite add up, I believe that this is the right time to make changes that will keep this country prospering.
ReplyDeleteAdriana Ortiz
P.5
The electoral college is something the United States has stuck with for the many years we have been a nation. I went into reading this article with he idea there could not be a proper solution until reading about the EQV system. I feel that it would prove more efficient due to it being a compromise between the electoral and popular vote.
ReplyDelete-Litzulli Figueroa per. 5
While reading the article, I developed a liking for the EQV system. Although the United States has been using the electoral college for all of these years, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best way to go. The EQV system is hands down the fairest route to go. The winer-takes-all aspect of the electoral college isn't extremely fair because even if one candidate wins by .0001%, they're still going to take all of that states votes. The EQV system will also make the popular vote more valuable than it already is. The people of the US will feel like their participation counts more with the EQV system. Right now, republicans in California and democrats in Texas are wasting their time voting, because those states are very party loyal. But, the EQV system will change that. It will give Americans more hope and give them more of a good feel when they vote knowing it will help the candidate in some way.
ReplyDeleteSitembile Sukuta, (P. 5)
changing the way we vote in a America seems like a very arduous task, but if we handle it right, the "cure' for the electoral college may have many benefits for The United States as a whole. A result of this could be an increase efficacy & turnout,. While very hard to pass by, the transition to EQV would be worth the struggle with our state representatives.
ReplyDeletePS sorry i fell asleep at the helm
I feel the electoral college reform should take place. With the idea that someone who is running for president can win the popular vote of the people but not win the presidency due to the lack of electoral votes is ridiculous. The electoral college makes the election process unfair to each candidate, one candidate could win the state vote by a minuscule amount but win all the electoral votes. So the EQV reform is a good idea because it compromises with both the electoral college and the popular votes of the people.
ReplyDeleteJurnee Joseph P. 2
I know I’m late but I figured I’d put in my two cents anyway. I think that the proportional system makes a lot more sense and seems a lot fairer than the winner take all system. But I don't think it is feasible that the states would give up the power they currently have without national influence and anyone elected by the winner take all system would not want to change the system that elected them. The party the state's votes usually go to would not want to harm their candidate’s effort. For example, if say California was to lead the way here democrats are in charge in our capital. If this reform were enacted some of the 55 votes that used to be going to a democratic candidate would now be divided among other parties weakening the democrats. So, no state would want to lead the way with this it would half to be changed at a national level which would also be extremely difficult.
ReplyDeleteKyle Wurtz P.5
I'm sorry for being late on this. I agree with the author on that we should move to an eqv system. This would create a more fair outcome that's reflected by the popular vote but isn't directly that. One issue this would cause however is campaigning. Due to the party not funding the candidate the candidates would have to be very wealthy to be able to campaign in many more states under an EQV system. This is because every little percentage they can sway in a state matters. I do not think it is feasible to actually convert to this system in a "full" republican office. They will see it as more
ReplyDeleteUnfair that the current system and put them at a disadvantage compared to democrats. In the end I do believe that the EQV system and its proportional voting would be more beneficial for the people.
While the EQV system seems like a good idea in concept, it is an idealistic solution to a complicated, messy matter. While I do believe that our government should move more towards a representational form of government versus the winner takes all method, I think that it is a bit naive to think that it can be changed without going to court. As mentioned in class this presentation also has some missing holes on how exactly it will meet the majority rule rule. When it comes to the "winner-take-all" system, it is obvious that a majority of people are misrepresented (or not represented at all) in national and local elections. This is a problem. However I can't help but wonder if allowing third parties to rise will make it harder for our government branches to reach an agreement and pass legislature. It is already hard enough to pass legislature as it is. How do we meet a fair balance?
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn Ortiz
I apologize for being really really late