latimes今天有一个关于electoral college的弊端的报道 基本上是说 1）结果比较随机 还有2）winners take all也会造成很多人的投票变废票 These two Californians think they’re close to changing the electoral college By John MyersSacramento Bureau Chief Oct. 31, 20205 AM If a California-based group succeeds in reworking the rules of the electoral college before the next presidential election, the achievement will come almost six decades after its architect unveiled his first, more trifling approach to the subject. A board game. As a Michigan graduate student in the 1960s, computer scientist John Koza designed a game in which players sprint across the country to win support from clusters of voters. The object, the instructions say, is to “use the limited supply of campaigning hours to maximum advantage” in collecting the 270 electoral college votes needed to win. Koza called the game “Consensus,” even though he knew that when players and presidents rely on a state-by-state strategy, there is no guarantee of a harmonious result.
“The essence of the game was the winner-take-all system is so quirky that even when two candidates have the exact same resources, you can play over and over again and end up with different results,” he said. “The moral of the game is the system is so crazy that anything can happen.” Fifteen years go, Koza stopped playing and got serious, joining forces with a Bay Area political campaign attorney to upend electoral college rules that have been in place for almost two centuries by persuading states to join a formal compact awarding their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. “Voters get it,” said Barry Fadem, the campaign attorney who runs the organization created to make Koza’s plan a reality. “They truly do understand that under the current system, their vote doesn’t count in a number of states.” The presidential reform odyssey of the two men is rooted in California politics. Koza, who sold 3,200 copies of the “Consensus” board game, hit the jackpot a few years later when his work with lottery games led to the invention of the instant-win scratch-off ticket. The company he helped create, Scientific Games, championed the creation of state lotteries, including the 1984 ballot measure that created the California Lottery.
Fadem helped run the California campaign and the two men kept in touch through the years. During a lunch meeting in 2004, Koza sketched out the idea for the electoral college compact, which he likens to a “workaround” of the system enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. “What we’re doing is changing the method of choosing the electors,” he said. Since 2005, their political nonprofit has lobbied legislators and governors across the nation to adopt a law requiring their state to award all of its electoral college votes to the national top vote-getter, regardless of which candidate wins the most votes in that state. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have signed on, representing 196 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to elect a president. The effort needs states representing 74 more votes, at which point the statutes will have the full force of the law.
“It’s been a marathon, but we absolutely see the light at the end of the tunnel,” Fadem said. The organization’s goal is to force the change in time for the presidential election of 2024. Every state but two awards all of its electoral votes in a single action. Maine and Nebraska divvy them up by congressional district. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue, leaving the decision to each state’s legislature. “In hindsight, it was the most brilliant decision by the Founding Fathers,” Fadem said of the flexibility. “We have met with legislators in various states to say, ‘You have the power of how electoral votes are awarded.’” California joined the compact in 2011, with only two Republican legislators in support. The result has been more bipartisan in other states, though the effort is frequently dismissed by skeptics who insist it would give an unfair advantage to one major political party or the other. Elected officials in smaller states have also expressed concern.
“In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada,” Gov. Steve Sisolak wrote in his 2019 veto messagerejecting the state Legislature’s approval of the electoral college agreement. Koza dismisses those concerns as “mythology” in regard to how the electoral college works, noting that President Trump’s 2016 victory was sealed by winning relatively large states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — and that even then, there’s no justification for elevating any one state above the national interest. “Why do we care who carries Florida?” Koza asked. “Why should that be relevant in an election with 150 million people voting?” The effort faces a major test on Tuesday in Colorado, where voters will consider a statewide referendum on whether to keep or reject the electoral compact law signed by Gov. Jared Polis in 2019. Should Proposition 113 be defeated, Colorado’s nine electoral college votes will be removed from the ledger kept by Koza and Fadem’s organization, National Popular Vote Inc.
And even if they ultimately succeed in signing up enough states, legal challenges are all but certain. Derek Mueller, a University of Iowa law professor, believes new rules for choosing a president can be created only by a constitutional amendment — involving an arduous process that requires supermajority support in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. An effort in Congress to adopt the change failed in 1969. Even then, Mueller said, attempting to bind the states together ignores that distinct — sometimes conflicting — rules govern elections from location to another. “States have different voter eligibility rules, different candidates appear on the ballot, different timing rules,” Mueller said. “The compact aggregates all these votes that aren’t really meant to be aggregated.”
He notes challenges will also arise based on existing limits to formal interstate compacts made without the consent of Congress. “While states can do what they want with their electors, there’s a separate concern about entering an agreement with other states,” Mueller said. Fadem said he believes the legality of a state-to-state agreement like the electoral college compact is “strong” and that a clear national winner would defuse the controversy that currently erupts over recounts, as it did in Florida in 2000. “We’re very confident that when challenged, it will pass muster,” he said.
For now, the challenge remains in the court of popular opinion. Koza said he can see the frenzy at the heart of his 1966 board game playing out in the current presidential race, a sprint focused on winning states, not on winning total votes. And he admits the contest between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden is a double-edged sword, drawing attention to the issue but also likely to leave supporters of the winner resistant to change. “We’re hoping to get back to a policy discussion,” he said. “And there’s a compelling case for it.”
噢，是这样的，原来一直以为按人头来计算最终的结果呢。
哪个大州300票？
没错， 川普主义就显示落后地区低教育的人口话语权， 像North Dakota, 20几万人口就有一张选举人票， 而在加州， 要70万才有一张
在选举权上， 在民主上，高收入高教育和低收入低教育的是平等的。不要以为自己读了点书，就有资格赞成精英民主。
选举人制度是开国先贤制定的，跟哪个总统有什么关系。
说的不错。如果在国内这么选举的话，可以避免被东南沿海地区左右。
每个地方的人都有权选择按自己的方式生活，你有啥权力让别人被动“进步”？
ooo
这个有意思
因为为了保护他们的不进步 我们的生活受到了极大的限制
electoral college的初衷很好 可是现在弄的像gerrymandering似的
需要被摈弃了
你签署契约的时候，也不希望对方违约吧，除非对契约的改变是双方同时接受的。现在如果要改变选举制度，也需要修宪并且各州同意。
自由不等于民主，两个概念
为何每次我都联想到辫子戏里的“祖宗之法不可变“
+1。
The Trump campaign is reportedly planning a way to bypass the 2020 election results in key swing states
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/trump-biden-electoral-college-electors-plan-loyalists-swing-states-2020-9%3famp
有呀，缅因另一位参议员是以独立人竞选成功的。三德子以前也是。
可以
学习一下Electoral College再发言吧，哪个州来的300票？
说得不错，以后homeless就不要投票了，罪犯也不可以投票，吃福利的不能投票，以此类推。以后发展成只有博士毕业的龟公鬼婆才能投票，对了，年薪少于50万也不能投票。这样以后就简单了，不用这么劳民伤财了
有两个参议员是独立党派的，最著名的就是Bernie Sanders，但是他们投票基本跟着民主党~
那他怎么能代表民主党出来竞选总统？
所以因为别人影响了你你就想影响别人不去影响你，地球还是围着你转吧
跟trump一家一样换党派啊
民主党也分成了极左和中左，极左向社会主义靠拢，自然和三德子一拍即合，所以三德子才会在民主党基层支持者众多
共产党是洪帮，帮规严密，等级森严。 美国党派是青帮，准充不准赖，自己宣布是某某党你就是了。
重罪的确实不能投 你不知道？
跑歪了，现在不是说要剥夺他们的选举权。 而是说他们的权利太大了，造成了不平等。
现在FL有重罪前科的人可以投票。
不应该有少数对多数或多数对少数的暴政而已
本来是保护少数的权益不受损
结果被倒过来限制多数人的婚姻自由 生育自由 医疗自由 及其他
有点和初衷背道而驰 或者说founding fathers的本意被绑架了
比如说某共和党参议员，思想腐化堕落，日益左倾，投票老和民主党投一样的，共和党可不可以像英国那样把他开除出党？还是只要他自称是共和党就是共和党？
我们这里还在投一个proposition 就是决定轻罪的人可不可以投票这件事
这是说的总统大人？
是的是的 不过ls说fl重罪也能投票
嗯 怪不得总统喜欢那里
要命了，这么明显的错误……还有赞的 参议院每个州2人，不管州人口大小 众议院才是按照人口决定众议员数量
那下次竞选连任就会被选下去啊，而且对立党派的选民也不会信任这样的政客，等于职业生涯自杀的意思？
这叫追求进步～～
她说的选举人票
我還以為270已經穩贏😂
选举人票不是跟人口完全挂钩的，等同众议员人数的才是代表人口，另外的每个州2票--和参议员人数一样，代表的是州，无论大小，在联邦制下，都有一样的发言权。
祖宗之法不可废~
electoral college 了解一下就明白了
这么多年两党可以轮流执政，证明现有系统是有效的，有强大的纠错能力。
that is popular vote. in 2016 trump lost that
美国一直以来都是选举人制度来选出总统。
不可能300票，只要270就赢了做总统了，真的一个州就300票了那就不要rally了，直接搞定这个州就可以了。
1804年就有人想要推翻electoral college过 未果
人老了 居然忘了
😭
其实目前每个州的票数是严重滞后于reality的 就是说它只反映了2010年的人口比例
所以人口增长快的沿海地区就很吃亏了
怪不得trump要提早结束census
这楼里要保现有的electoral college的同学们 特别是right-leaning的同学们 你们明白了吗？
但是人口增长快的州 相当于把一张票撕给了几个人用
这是个bug 主要是受制于census要每十年才能做一次 但是思想落后者觉得是个feature
而是census bureau没有做好人口增长的projection
基本上是说 1）结果比较随机 还有2）winners take all也会造成很多人的投票变废票
These two Californians think they’re close to changing the electoral college By John MyersSacramento Bureau Chief Oct. 31, 20205 AM If a California-based group succeeds in reworking the rules of the electoral college before the next presidential election, the achievement will come almost six decades after its architect unveiled his first, more trifling approach to the subject. A board game. As a Michigan graduate student in the 1960s, computer scientist John Koza designed a game in which players sprint across the country to win support from clusters of voters. The object, the instructions say, is to “use the limited supply of campaigning hours to maximum advantage” in collecting the 270 electoral college votes needed to win. Koza called the game “Consensus,” even though he knew that when players and presidents rely on a state-by-state strategy, there is no guarantee of a harmonious result.
“The essence of the game was the winner-take-all system is so quirky that even when two candidates have the exact same resources, you can play over and over again and end up with different results,” he said. “The moral of the game is the system is so crazy that anything can happen.” Fifteen years go, Koza stopped playing and got serious, joining forces with a Bay Area political campaign attorney to upend electoral college rules that have been in place for almost two centuries by persuading states to join a formal compact awarding their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. “Voters get it,” said Barry Fadem, the campaign attorney who runs the organization created to make Koza’s plan a reality. “They truly do understand that under the current system, their vote doesn’t count in a number of states.” The presidential reform odyssey of the two men is rooted in California politics. Koza, who sold 3,200 copies of the “Consensus” board game, hit the jackpot a few years later when his work with lottery games led to the invention of the instant-win scratch-off ticket. The company he helped create, Scientific Games, championed the creation of state lotteries, including the 1984 ballot measure that created the California Lottery.
Fadem helped run the California campaign and the two men kept in touch through the years. During a lunch meeting in 2004, Koza sketched out the idea for the electoral college compact, which he likens to a “workaround” of the system enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. “What we’re doing is changing the method of choosing the electors,” he said. Since 2005, their political nonprofit has lobbied legislators and governors across the nation to adopt a law requiring their state to award all of its electoral college votes to the national top vote-getter, regardless of which candidate wins the most votes in that state. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have signed on, representing 196 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to elect a president. The effort needs states representing 74 more votes, at which point the statutes will have the full force of the law.
“It’s been a marathon, but we absolutely see the light at the end of the tunnel,” Fadem said. The organization’s goal is to force the change in time for the presidential election of 2024. Every state but two awards all of its electoral votes in a single action. Maine and Nebraska divvy them up by congressional district. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue, leaving the decision to each state’s legislature. “In hindsight, it was the most brilliant decision by the Founding Fathers,” Fadem said of the flexibility. “We have met with legislators in various states to say, ‘You have the power of how electoral votes are awarded.’” California joined the compact in 2011, with only two Republican legislators in support. The result has been more bipartisan in other states, though the effort is frequently dismissed by skeptics who insist it would give an unfair advantage to one major political party or the other. Elected officials in smaller states have also expressed concern.
“In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada,” Gov. Steve Sisolak wrote in his 2019 veto messagerejecting the state Legislature’s approval of the electoral college agreement. Koza dismisses those concerns as “mythology” in regard to how the electoral college works, noting that President Trump’s 2016 victory was sealed by winning relatively large states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — and that even then, there’s no justification for elevating any one state above the national interest. “Why do we care who carries Florida?” Koza asked. “Why should that be relevant in an election with 150 million people voting?” The effort faces a major test on Tuesday in Colorado, where voters will consider a statewide referendum on whether to keep or reject the electoral compact law signed by Gov. Jared Polis in 2019. Should Proposition 113 be defeated, Colorado’s nine electoral college votes will be removed from the ledger kept by Koza and Fadem’s organization, National Popular Vote Inc.
And even if they ultimately succeed in signing up enough states, legal challenges are all but certain. Derek Mueller, a University of Iowa law professor, believes new rules for choosing a president can be created only by a constitutional amendment — involving an arduous process that requires supermajority support in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. An effort in Congress to adopt the change failed in 1969. Even then, Mueller said, attempting to bind the states together ignores that distinct — sometimes conflicting — rules govern elections from location to another. “States have different voter eligibility rules, different candidates appear on the ballot, different timing rules,” Mueller said. “The compact aggregates all these votes that aren’t really meant to be aggregated.”
He notes challenges will also arise based on existing limits to formal interstate compacts made without the consent of Congress. “While states can do what they want with their electors, there’s a separate concern about entering an agreement with other states,” Mueller said. Fadem said he believes the legality of a state-to-state agreement like the electoral college compact is “strong” and that a clear national winner would defuse the controversy that currently erupts over recounts, as it did in Florida in 2000. “We’re very confident that when challenged, it will pass muster,” he said.
For now, the challenge remains in the court of popular opinion. Koza said he can see the frenzy at the heart of his 1966 board game playing out in the current presidential race, a sprint focused on winning states, not on winning total votes. And he admits the contest between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden is a double-edged sword, drawing attention to the issue but also likely to leave supporters of the winner resistant to change. “We’re hoping to get back to a policy discussion,” he said. “And there’s a compelling case for it.”
取消electoral college，需要四分之三的州议会通过，这是又要打一场内战的节奏啊～～