Of course which ever party had the best hold on a state will move to which ever method they thing protects themselves. If a state is historically predominately Republican, they will want winner take all. The same is true of the Democrats.
| Forum Announcement |
Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!
make the electoral college irrelevant. I'd not be unhappy if that happened. As it is, candidates can and do pick and choose who gets attention and who does not when they're on the campaign trail. That shouldn't be happening, IMO. As it is now, some people's votes carry...virtually, anyway, more weight than others. How is that supposed to be true representative government. I'd vote tomorrow to end the electoral college. In essence, proportioning their vote does not sound like a bad alternative.
had the vote been distributed proportionally, it would not have affected the outcome of the most recent election but we'd likely have had Al Gore as president rather than Bush. Come to think of it, had Al Gore been elected it might be a while before anyone of his party would be president again and they'd be the ones rethinking their strategy.
The Democrats in that state first proposed proportional electoral votes, then when it came time to vote, I guess they got spooked and backed out, and it failed 65-35%. If instead the Democrats had done what they first proposed when it came voting time to institute proportional electoral votes, as noted by you, Gore would have become president.
Although Republicans might be proposing it in a state now, it's not an idea endemic to just one party. Maybe in future both Republicans and Democrats who support the safety of a proportional electoral process in a state will band together on the issue to embarrass their colleagues into changing to it.
over a straight national popular vote.
With a straight national popular vote, a recount may well require an entire nation.
With a proportional electoral college vote, recounts might be limited to the state an alleged impropriety occured.
Of course, I guess the loser could challenge in every state to try to pick up one vote from each.
Another alternative is to allow each house of representative district presidental vote to determine one national vote for president. If you tried to do one vote for each senate and house district you'd be counting every vote twice.
with close votes in states with an even number of electors. It might be necessary to ensure that the popular vote winner gets at least one more electoral vote than whoever comes in second. Of course in the unlikely event that two people get exactly the same vote count, each would get 1/2 the delegates. What would happen in a tie if a state had an odd number of representatives is something I'd not want to think about. What I really want to see an end to is candidates thinking that some people can be ignored without affecting their chances of winning and that extra attention to a select few will be all that's needed to win. As it is now, candidates who focus on promises to special interests based on race, gender, etc., have a decided advantage over those who run on real equality for all. I'd like to see that eliminated and that candidates view every potential voter as the one who'll put them into office. Pie in the sky, I suspect.
voting in choosing their candidate at the national convention?
I guess we could do the same, but that would get very messy. Your provision the the popular winner of the state must have at least one vote more than the next candidate isn't bad, but if there was a close 2 and 3 in a state (not recently for certain) who loses a vote?
If we did away with the electoral college completely wouldn't that take a US constitutional admendment?
As I understand it, and as I understood James it sounds the same, the number of electoral vote a state gets is a US constitution item, but the method of awarding them is left entirely up to each state. Will a state lessen it's electoral "power" by spliting it's votes while others don't?
Then there is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) where enought sates to control the winner of the electorol vote sign a contract to cast all their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner. It avoids having to change anything about the electoral college.
Of course, what happens if the national vote is so close different states in th compact decide different candidates actually did win once the votes were recounted and verified?
shows they aren't deliberately engaged in disenfranchising a possibly significant minority of their residents. I know in this state where it's 60-40 in favor of Democrats, they have no interest in proportional electoral college, because they care only about that 60% of the state's votes.
maybe a half dozen have always voted for one party candidates the last 100 years, but I doubt it.
Remember when Newt and the Republicans tried to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate completely because they had the majority and were egotistical enough to think they had won for all time.
I vote Republican more than Democratic from dog catcher to president, but even I thought that was the one of the most stupid short sighted beliefs I had ever heard.
Didn't you want simple vote count across the USA. While I think that's foolish due to allowing some states to stuff the vote count, thereby outweighing other states which don't, it would seem proportional vote counting would accomplish much the same as you've desired in past and put a necessary stop wall to keep cheating within some states from overriding honest vote count within others.
Bill Clinton was advantaged by the winner take all system. Here's a list of which states are proportional and which are winner take all.
Remember, you don't need a majority to get all the electoral votes in a "winner take all" state, just a plurality, which means someone theoretically could take all electoral votes with 34% of the vote in a 3 way race, or 26% in a 4 way race. Is that really what you want? Is that really the best approach for the country?
While we tend to favor a two party system, there have been times when a third party has been stronger and as nothing more than a protest candidate actually could secure enough electoral votes to cast the election in doubt till Electoral College got through fighting over who should be president and vice president. That likely would end in a situation where both were members of different parties, something that's happened here and in Europe before.
proportional allows everyone's vote to count more equally.
"Based on the Constitutional provision that a state's
electors equal its number of senators (two) plus its number of
representatives (eight), Maryland has ten electors (U.S. Constitution,
Art. II, sec. 1). The electoral process by which they function is set
forth in Maryland law (Code Election Law Article, secs. 8-503 through
8-505). Candidates for president and vice-president who receives a plurality of the votes cast in Maryland receive all of the electoral votes. In other words, Maryland law provides for a "winner take all" system "
a loser to win is anti-democratic. Were it enacted the back-lash would be outrage and a campaign to reverse the situation. Three Presidents in the 19th Century were elected with less than a majority of votes cast, the most egregious being Rutherford B Hayes, and then there was the village idiot in 2000. I doubt people would tolerate a return to that sorry precedent. Trying to adjudicate the case in Justice Scaly Scalia's Supreme Court (Yeah, yeah, I know Roberts is supposedly Chief) probably wouldn't be successful but Scalia can't live forever and the Court would be bringing down a world of hurt on themselves if they enacted anything so anti-democratic. Additionally, the US would be no better than a banana republic in the eyes of the rest of the world.