| November 10 |  |
Editor says, what if the Reds and Blues divided? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the November 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 2012, just days after Mitt Romney's defeat at the polls, Republicans demanded a fundamental restructuring of the Electoral College that would bring an end to the frustration of dysfunctional Federal Government. The result followed a wave of voter disappointment in which Donald Trump (pictured) called for a protest march on Washington. Other commentators remarked upon the excessive focus on swing states and undecided voters that perhaps disenfranchised the mainstream majority.
Radcliffe Cloud, ReduxBecause under these far-reaching proposals to address the change of demographics, the winner-take-all voting system would be slowly eliminated on a state by state basis. One option was a national roll-out of the congressional districting solution already operating in Maine.
Of course a more extreme option being proposed by GOP backers was secession model based upon a refinement of the Radcliffe Cloud in which those congressional districts would become red or blue cantons in a two-countries-in-one geography model like the modern India. Comedian Bill Maher suggested that perhaps Trump's hair and scalp represented an assessment model for the viability of two entities loosely connected in a shared living space.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© althistorian@gmail.comStory Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Politicians Source: Wikipedia Labels: Electoral College, Red, Blue, Presidency, Election. Editor says, this idea was conceived by Jeff Provine in Radcliffe Cloud Unveiled and based on discussions with Stan Brin, Chris Oakley and Tony Rocca.
~ Civil War II, coming this January to Fox.... :D
~ I could see the Radcliffe model being pushed for in some circles here in the States, but beyond that not much.
~ Ho! ho! That would really be a radical move for the right wing of the Republican Party.
This is because of the 18th century constitution which was based around such things as Electors and Colleges of Electors to avoid direct democracy.
In theory you are electing the elctors to get on horses and in coaches to meet to elect the president.
In practise the tradition has evolvedthat the electors o each state all vote for whoever has the most votes in that state.
Really two days ago the electorate were elcting the electors with guidance in each state as to who they shouldvote for.
The solution of course would be diect voting in which the electorate just vote for the candidates.
~ Donald Trump is a baffoon.....
~ The Electoral College ensures that people campaigning for the only nation-wide elective offices campaign everywhere, not just in the major metros.
~ Eric Oppen -- That's the excuse. As we have seen, virtually all of the campaign was conducted in a very few swing states. The rest of the country was taken for granted. California is solidly Democratic, so we never saw either candidate. A Maine-style system would not require a constitutional amendment, but would require a pairing of states so that neither party felt threatened. The result would far more accurately reflect the national consensus. Or, we could just abolish the Electoral College altogether, even have a runoff if the winning candidate fails to obtain a majority.
~ Supporting Stan's suggestion to abolish the electoral college...we were just faced with the absurd situation of Ohio and Florida largely deciding the whole election.
~ Folks, you need to check end of 18th century - early 19th century history.
restricted franchises, usually taking the form of Electoral College, were all the rage, to keep the vote in the hands of the good. Napoleon as First Consu had it in his constitution.
In other word's its an 18th century survival.
~ The Electoral College was also intended to give added political clout to slaveholding Southern states to postpone the evil day when a federal government dominated by non-slaveholding states might abol;ish their most cherished institution, the "right of property in Negro slaves." When the South attempted secession in the 1860s, the individial Southern states' secession resolutions made it explicit that they were bolting the Union to keep slavery. Surely that's a dead issue at this point, robbing the EC of one of its (less publicized but jmore important) reasons for being.
~ The only reason to retain the EC in any form would be to retain a measure of Federalism in the selection of the President. Frankly, most people would prefer that the President be elected by popular vote. (I would also prefer that California had more Senators than Wyoming or Delaware, but what do I know?
~ At least splitting the votes as Nebraska and Maine do would make a world of difference.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
