Call your state legislators -- they're the only ones who can do that.If the EC must remain, then I'd prefer proportional allocation. So if candidate A gets 52% of the popular vote in CA, he'd get 29 EV; while candidate B would get 26 EV (assuming he got 48% of the vote).
Call your state legislators -- they're the only ones who can do that.
People are trying to get rid of the electoral college even though what they should be doing is writing their state legislators requesting that their state use a proportional system in divvying up electoral votes. Like Maine uses.
This leaves you SOL. Sorry.Been there, done that, and they ain't interested.
I did the math for the 2000/2004 election using proprtional allocation.It's funny, that. The Democrats occasionally try to ram a ballot proposition through that would, in Colorado, for example, with 8 EC's force the state to make the distribution of electors, but they're adamantly opposed to anyone even thinking about doing that to California, with over 50 EC's.
Hypocrites, they are.
This leaves you SOL. Sorry.
It's funny, that. The Democrats occasionally try to ram a ballot proposition through that would, in Colorado, for example, with 8 EC's force the state to make the distribution of electors, but they're adamantly opposed to anyone even thinking about doing that to California, with over 50 EC's.
Hypocrites, they are.
I did the math for the 2000/2004 election using proprtional allocation.
Bush wins bigger, both times. The red states are more red than the blue states are blue.
The people dont elect the President, and so that doesn't matter.
And... your criteria here is still flawed. State elections are held for the state electors, not the President. In that, the equality/inequality of any given vote is found within the state that holds the election -- and in that, all votes are equal.
One thing a proportional vote tally might do is give a little more legitimacy to a third party candidate.
No. People will still feel like voting 3rd party is like voting for their worst enemy, or not voting at all. This wouldn't change even if each state wasn't winner take all.
Proportional representation, which wouldn't apply to presidential elections, is where people vote for parties and, given a certain threshold of votes, the party wins seats. Say the threshold is 5%. If 5% of people vote green, then 5% of seats are filled with green party candidates. Then you might see something like 15% libertarian, 45% democrat, and 35% republican. The composition of the Congress would more closely reflect the preferences of the people given more than two choices, as opposed to in each district whichever party has the highest percentage takes all and everybody else's preferences are effectively ignored.
Given that the President is the head of Government, elected by the states, and that the Federal Government governs over a Republic of sovereign states, the electoral college shoud have 50 memebers, one from each state, as under the Constitution, each state is equal.
People are trying to get rid of the electoral college even though what they should be doing is writing their state legislators requesting that their state use a proportional system in divvying up electoral votes. Like Maine uses.
If all the people in the "minority" parties for their states rallied for this, it would eventually pass. But too much focus is being placed on it being a national thing when it is totally a state thing.
Right now, in the current system, your vote can count. If your state altered the way they delegate the EC votes. They only talk about abolishing the EC in order to make you think they actyally care.
All that divying it up by districts would do would be to give us swing districts instead of swing states. I fail to see the real difference here.
More of an opportunity to be heard. there would be many more swing districts than swing states.
Plus, I'm more in favor of a proportional allocation that a district based allocation. That would mean that there wouldn't even be swing districts.
Good catch, I never thought about that angle, but this may become something in the next decade if Washington doesn't change, I think third party becomes viable then.One thing a proportional vote tally might do is give a little more legitimacy to a third party candidate.
Good catch, I never thought about that angle, but this may become something in the next decade if Washington doesn't change, I think third party becomes viable then.
Haven't people been saying that for decades? It's never happened so far.
Difference now is that more people seem to be saying it. I'll admit that for third party viability it would take both parties to fall into extreme disfavor with a good block of their supporters, but this seems to be happening currently, only time will tell though.Haven't people been saying that for decades? It's never happened so far.
I'm okay with two parties that stand for something solid, as it stands both parties are a mess at the moment, I'm okay with what's best for our country.And as long as third parties remain as ridiculous as they are now it won't, ever.
Am I the only one here who is perfectly okay with that?
And as long as third parties remain as ridiculous as they are now it won't, ever.
Am I the only one here who is perfectly okay with that?
Haven't people been saying that for decades? It's never happened so far.
You mentioned Maine and Nebraska, those two do a district-based approach. And swing disctricts don't really make things better. Last year, 14 or so states were seriously contested by one side or the other. Everyone in those states were targeted, that's a lot of people. Do you really think it'd be that many if we go by districts, many of which are gerrymandered?
The states, not the people, elect the President, and so any argument regarding the quality of people is meaningless.Each state is equal, but each person is equal too...
I addressed this earlier when I argued that each state shoud have one vote in the EC.No I just don't start with the assumption that our government is exactly as it should be. Why should the states elect the President?
Under the current EC system, where elections within the states allow people to vote for their electors, each person's vote IS equal, as each person's vote has exactly the same weight as every other.
No.Not really. A person's vote in Ohio or Florida has more value than my vote in Illinois under the current system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?