FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.
FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.
FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.
At quick glance, I don't think I like that idea. It's like making a college football poll.
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
this way has always made sense to me. winner take all is stupid to me. but the electoral college, as I've stated many times before, was never a problem for anyone until Trump won by it. I find it quite amazing the job that was done setting it up way back then, and it hasn't really been a question until now.
It was a problem in 2000 too... and 2004 where campaigning was only done in like 2 states
I don't recall it being a problem with the EC in 2000, in that I don't remember anyone saying the EC needed to be scrapped because of that outcome. that was vote counting, plain and simple, from what I recall.
A lot of Americans felt disenfranchised through those 2 elections because it basically fell on Ohio and Florida. You also had another popular vote loss with an EC winner. I think at that time, we weren't so divided and lulled into a sense of security based on the economic prosperity and relative peace-time we experienced under Clinton. There was also limited internet, social media, and the saturating news-cycle didn't yet fire up. 2004 it again was focused on few states. If John Kerry convinced 66,000 more people in Cincinnati, Ohio to vote for him, he would have won, despite losing by 3,000,000 votes. At least, in present day, there seem to be more states in play. Still, 2/3 - 3/4 of the country is in 'fly-over' states in the presidential election.
There was a movement recently to get State governors to agree to assign their state's electoral votes to the popular vote winner. I believe they had some states on board with this and were lobbying in 40 different states. This was in like 2012, not sure what happened to that.
Not only do you have large sections of the country who 'dont matter' in the election.... the weighting of the votes is off.
In New York, we have 29 Electoral Votes for 19,745,000 people. That is 1 vote per 680,862 people.
Wyoming has 3 Electoral Votes for 585,500 people, That is 1 vote per 195,167 people.
FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.
At quick glance, I don't think I like that idea. It's like making a college football poll.
FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.
At quick glance, I don't think I like that idea. It's like making a college football poll.
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
agree 100%.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
Elections are fair as long as everyone understands and plays by the rules ?
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
Elections are fair as long as everyone understands and plays by the rules ?
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
Elections are fair as long as everyone understands and plays by the rules ?
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
I don't think "predictable" is equivalent to "fair", particularly if we're looking at "fair" to the voters, not the candidates.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I think she did beat him and strongly. He only got in through a technicality. Cue founding fathers rolling in their graves.
True- the Electoral College. Time to dump that one. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe the Dems couldn't some up with a candidate that would beat a clown like Trump by a record breaking landslide. Or maybe the American voting public really has gotten that lame in which case- good luck to us.
I don't think the Electoral College is a bad thing at all, but I do think the 'winner takes all' within a State's voting population makes little sense. Why not do proportional representation within a State? D gets 48%, R gets 52%, a State has 7 seats - 7*.48 = 3.36 = 3 seats for D, 7*.52 = 3.64 = 4 seats for R. This way you can optimize the normalizing of congressional and Electoral College seats (as the method of equal proportions does quite well), while moving forward from committing a State's number of seats based on a binary decision (win or lose).
I think it's a very interesting issue. If you just go popular vote, the edges of a very large country is all that matters. If you go electoral the way it is, people in a few states matter much more than they should.
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
Elections are fair as long as everyone understands and plays by the rules ?
Funny how the GOP keeps getting their hand slapped for not following the rules.
gerrymandering and dark money are easily the two biggest obstacles to true democracy.
What about ignorance, confirmation bias and stupidity?
those are difficult to quantify. those are better for message board discussions. we can easily leave districting to computer algorithms and eliminate dark money by legislation.
I'm with Cincy on this one. Gerrymandering has almost no impact on a presidential race because it all falls on state border lines and you can't draw lines for another state. On the last redraw of my state, I literally helped draw the lines with staff from our general assembly. The process is so mundane. You wouldn't believe the requests we had from members of the GA or Congress about what they wanted in their boundaries. But that's where gerrymandering has the biggest impact- state general assembly and federal Congress. Then it's, "I want this side of that rode until it gets to the next block- then I want both".
I'm with Cincy on this one. Gerrymandering has almost no impact on a presidential race because it all falls on state border lines and you can't draw lines for another state. On the last redraw of my state, I literally helped draw the lines with staff from our general assembly. The process is so mundane. You wouldn't believe the requests we had from members of the GA or Congress about what they wanted in their boundaries. But that's where gerrymandering has the biggest impact- state general assembly and federal Congress. Then it's, "I want this side of that rode until it gets to the next block- then I want both".
Hill: “Off I went into a frenzy of closet cleaning, long walks in the woods, playing with my dogs and, you know, my share of chardonnay,” she said. “It was a very hard transition, and I make no bones about it. I really struggled, and for the longest time, I was just totally drained. I couldn’t feel, I couldn’t think, I was just gobsmacked.”
Trump is an absolute master salesman, good for him, unfortunate when he cannot deliver the goods he advertised. He was very precise at the end of campaign and deciding where to do it towards the end, to give him the necessary votes for the EC. I think he sold the people in control of those final votes, he told them anything and everything they wanted to hear as long as they signed on the dotted line. That is the ultimate goal of the salesman is to close the deal, no matter what. That's what he wrote his book about. He can sell the name "Trump" even before he was elected and even after he filed bankruptcy a few times.
Hillary is not a salesman. I feel like we have a smarter than average (and that's a stretch) used car salesman for a president. I think her book will be a good read!
amy
Amy The Great #74594
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016 Missoula MT 2018
Trump is an absolute master salesman, good for him, unfortunate when he cannot deliver the goods he advertised. He was very precise at the end of campaign and deciding where to do it towards the end, to give him the necessary votes for the EC. I think he sold the people in control of those final votes, he told them anything and everything they wanted to hear as long as they signed on the dotted line. That is the ultimate goal of the salesman is to close the deal, no matter what. That's what he wrote his book about. He can sell the name "Trump" even before he was elected and even after he filed bankruptcy a few times.
Hillary is not a salesman. I feel like we have a smarter than average (and that's a stretch) used car salesman for a president. I think her book will be a good read!
amy
One small correction - that's what his ghost writer wrote his book about. He didn't write a word of it. But yes to the used car salesman analogy.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
if anyone thought Trump had a chance at winning, people would have come out in droves to vote for HC. when the media reports that trump had an 8% chance of winning, people think "oh well, then I don't need to bother".
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
if anyone thought Trump had a chance at winning, people would have come out in droves to vote for HC. when the media reports that trump had an 8% chance of winning, people think "oh well, then I don't need to bother".
I agree, probably happened on both sides. If you look at the vote totals compared to previous elections, trump received about the same as Mccain and Romney, Hilliarys total dropped compared to Obama, especially 2008.
if anyone thought Trump had a chance at winning, people would have come out in droves to vote for HC. when the media reports that trump had an 8% chance of winning, people think "oh well, then I don't need to bother".
what a shit/piss election! on one side you have a celebrity game show host and a "dossier" about urine on the other side you have corruption stumbling and "conspiracies" about feces
I'll buy the book only if Hilliary talks about wtf was going on 1 year ago today.
Comments
FairVote Minnesota works for a healthier democracy through public education and advocacy of electoral reform. We promote inclusive voting systems that foster greater choice and a stronger voice for all voters through increased competition, participation, and representation.
We advocate specifically for Ranked Choice Voting, a system proven to be more inclusive, participatory, and representative than our current first-past-the-post electoral system.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan grassroots organization that engages hundreds of volunteers and thousands of supporters. Together, we work to educate voters and advance electoral reform at all election levels in Minnesota.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There was a movement recently to get State governors to agree to assign their state's electoral votes to the popular vote winner. I believe they had some states on board with this and were lobbying in 40 different states. This was in like 2012, not sure what happened to that.
Not only do you have large sections of the country who 'dont matter' in the election.... the weighting of the votes is off.
In New York, we have 29 Electoral Votes for 19,745,000 people. That is 1 vote per 680,862 people.
Wyoming has 3 Electoral Votes for 585,500 people, That is 1 vote per 195,167 people.
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
I honestly do not know the answer. But I believe either system is "fair" as long as the candidates know the rules going in. Blaming your loss on the system is only blaming the loss on your ability to understand and plan for the system. Weak sauce.
-EV 8/14/93
The Supreme Court Finds North Carolina's Racial Gerrymandering Unconstitutional
Major win: Supreme Court reverses ruling that protected Virginia GOP's legislative gerrymander
District Court Just Ruled That Texas Gerrymandering Violated the Voting Rights Act
Wisconsin judge orders state GOP to redraw gerrymandered legislative districts
Dems to challenge ‘partisan gerrymander’ in Michigan
Gerrymandering in Michigan is among the nation’s worst
Pennsylvania Lawsuit Says House Redistricting Is Partisan Gerrymander
Analysis: Partisan gerrymandering has benefited Republicans more than Democrats
Funny how the GOP keeps getting their hand slapped for not following the rules.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't think "predictable" is equivalent to "fair", particularly if we're looking at "fair" to the voters, not the candidates.
But that's where gerrymandering has the biggest impact- state general assembly and federal Congress. Then it's, "I want this side of that rode until it gets to the next block- then I want both".
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
“Off I went into a frenzy of closet cleaning, long walks in the woods, playing with my dogs and, you know, my share of chardonnay,” she said. “It was a very hard transition, and I make no bones about it. I really struggled, and for the longest time, I was just totally drained. I couldn’t feel, I couldn’t think, I was just gobsmacked.”
I'm done being a candidate
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/349990-clinton-i-am-done-with-being-a-candidate
Hillary is not a salesman. I feel like we have a smarter than average (and that's a stretch) used car salesman for a president. I think her book will be a good read!
amy
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016
Missoula MT 2018
-EV 8/14/93
If you look at the vote totals compared to previous elections, trump received about the same as Mccain and Romney, Hilliarys total dropped compared to Obama, especially 2008.
1) you're district has been gerrymandered to shiat
2) your vote is actively being suppressed through ID legislation
3) polling places are understaffed and have long lines
4) early voting rules have been changed to make voting less convenient
5) my registration was cancelled because I moved or didn't vote in the last 2 years
6) the gotdam kkk might be hanging out
on one side you have a celebrity game show host and a "dossier" about urine
on the other side you have corruption stumbling and "conspiracies" about feces
I'll buy the book only if Hilliary talks about wtf was going on 1 year ago today.
Pretty sure there's a TON of corruption on the other side too