End the winner takes all?

[parabelum]

Seeing how no matter what, we always end up with half+ of the Country feeling left behind and frustrated, and to a point where folks are reaching the boiling point, I heard an interesting idea...get rid of winner takes all system and allow the winner to take the Presidency with loser taking the VP spot.
In this way, each Party would feel like they have representation and my conjecture is that this could prevent the coming Civil War, as each side would have a foot in (after all both would have to work together which could be positive for the Nation).

I just don’t see how we can go on, where 69+ million of folks will be beyond boiling point. Whether Dems or us, it fuels the fire. I’d say the same if Trump was in the decisive lead. We cannot go on like this if we want to remain as a Nation.

Just thinking of ways to prevent what will come very soon unless some drastic change comes.

Am I alone here?

[Flightmare]

That is very close to how it was done prior to the 12th amendment.

Under the original rules of the Constitution, each member of the Electoral College cast two electoral votes, with no distinction made between electoral votes for president and electoral votes for vice president. The presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of votes—provided that number equaled a majority of the electors—was elected president, while the presidential candidate receiving the second-most votes was elected vice president.

[Middle Age Russ]

From my perspective, it is time for Term Limits and compensation reforms for the Congress and Senate. Without effectively removing incentives to politics as a career path for avaricious individuals, we are faced with camps that align on ever-divergent policy positions in gamesmanship for wealth and power instead of aligning in service to the People they are supposed to represent. The winner take all Presidential/VP stakes does contribute a bit to this partisanship, but the root of the partisanship is far deeper than a guaranteed VP slot aligned with the President.

[parabelum]

I agree with you Russ but why can’t we shoot for both? Again, I’m pondering these things as I see the war brewing on both sides and then only Facebook, Twitter and MSM will win.

Term limits -> Yes! End of two party takes all -> Yes!

[C-dub]

I would rather see an electoral college like system within the states. For each governor, they are elected by a majority of the counties in that state. Each county gets one vote based on the votes of the people in that county. The same goes for US Presidential elections. Each county gets one vote and then the candidate that gets the most counties in a state get that state's electoral votes or each state gets one vote.

People can still run their state how they want. We should also get rid of the 17th amendment and give the states back what was their right in the beginning of choosing their own representatives. The people choose their representatives and the state legislatures should choose theirs.

[strogg]

To add, I believe we should change our voting system to an instant runoff or contingent voting system. It would not significantly increase cost, and it would allow more political parties to be taken seriously without the risk of repeating 1996. I may consider myself a "Republican" right now, but I would not hesitate to jump ship if I knew another party more aligned with my values would have a fleeting chance.

[TomV]

Two states are not winner take all in the EC. Nebraska and Maine. I think it should be like that across the board.

[C-dub]

Two states are not winner take all in the EC. Nebraska and Maine. I think it should be like that across the board.

I've seen this many times. I fail to understand how this is different or much different from a popular vote (mob rule).

[parabelum]

Problem is, and has been for a long time, that because we have such a decisive divide in the Country that has become increasingly more polarized and entrenched on both sides, no matter who “wins” WE as a Nation lose. We are not gonna be able to convince 70 million of those in disagreement with us of our values and vice versa, they will not be able to convince 70 million of us of their junk.
So short of coming Civil War that I assure you no sane person would want, we need to start coming up with solutions that drive towards so sense of unity otherwise my dear friends, it isn’t gonna go well.
And I emphasize as I’ve done ad nauseum here, I have lived 5 years thru one civil war and everyone lost, a lot. There has to be some sense of representation on both sides at the WH level. All other roads lead to our (and by our I mean us and them combined) demise, giving advantage to our foreign
enemies.

Not sure if my esl is coming thru clearly enough.

[Flightmare]

Problem is, and has been for a long time, that because we have such a decisive divide in the Country that has become increasingly more polarized and entrenched on both sides, no matter who “wins” WE as a Nation lose. We are not gonna be able to convince 70 million of those in disagreement with us of our values and vice versa, they will not be able to convince 70 million of us of their junk.
So short of coming Civil War that I assure you no sane person would want, we need to start coming up with solutions that drive towards so sense of unity otherwise my dear friends, it isn’t gonna go well.
And I emphasize as I’ve done ad nauseum here, I have lived 5 years thru one civil war and everyone lost, a lot. There has to be some sense of representation on both sides at the WH level. All other roads lead to our (and by our I mean us and them combined) demise, giving advantage to our foreign
enemies.

Not sure if my esl is coming thru clearly enough.

This is where I think most people are confused about our system of government. I do not believe POTUS was designed to be a representative of the people.

Where are the electoral college results certified for POTUS? Is it in the House of Representatives (which represents the people) or the United States Senate (which represents the states).

Where are cabinet level positions confirmed? Is it in the House (which represents the people) or the Senate (which represents the states).

My opinion is, POTUS was designed to be the chief executive presiding over the federal government. Part of those responsibilities is to act as a representative of the individual states in matters of foreign affairs. Anyone want to guess where treaties are ratified?

[MaduroBU]

I think that the current size of the Federal government and its impact of every facet of life makes political decisions inescapably personal.

[BigGuy]

This is where I think most people are confused about our system of government. I do not believe POTUS was designed to be a representative of the people.

Where are the electoral college results certified for POTUS? Is it in the House of Representatives (which represents the people) or the United States Senate (which represents the states).

Where are cabinet level positions confirmed? Is it in the House (which represents the people) or the Senate (which represents the states).

My opinion is, POTUS was designed to be the chief executive presiding over the federal government. Part of those responsibilities is to act as a representative of the individual states in matters of foreign affairs. Anyone want to guess where treaties are ratified?

I hadn't considered this perspective, but it certainly sounds right. At least as to how the FF intended for it to work. But I don't think that is the reality anymore. I certainly don't feel represented by the House. They seem to be advocates of big government and fewer individual rights. They don't ask the people how they feel, they tell how they should.
It seems to me the branch that has advocated best for my personal well being over the last 3+ years is the President. And likely the person who will do the most damage over the next 4 year will be President Harris. (Well, 3 1/2 if it takes her 6 months to deep 6 Joe.)

[Syntyr]

I think that the current size of the Federal government and its impact of every facet of life makes political decisions inescapably personal.

However, with the election of Mumbles Biden I see no way forward with this path. I am afraid a lot of “us” are going to be turned into criminals overnight.

I am considering starting to drain my 401k and investments. I just need to make a few more years and head for the “hills”.

I pray that a civil war does not come. Any sane person will recognize that with the amount of nuclear weapons the US has that a CWII will be very very dangerous!

[Charles L. Cotton]

The electoral college performed its intended function for a long time. However, as the U.S. population became increasingly more consolidated in a just a few states, the goal of the electoral college cannot be achieved.It will never happen, but the Constitution needs to be amended to provide for electing the President and VP by a simple majority of the states. The President should be the President for all states and he should be equally concerned about the residents of all states. That's not the case when you must cater to large population areas.

Yes, it would be possible to have a tie, however that's highly unlikely. It's also easy to deal with a tie by using the percentage of victory in each state. For example, if the winning candidate received 5% more votes, then he gets 5 "points." In a tie, whoever gets more "points" wins the election.

Again, it will never happen.
Chas.