Should all states adopt proportional representation for the electoral college

Currently in every state except Maine and Nebraska it is winner-take-all, so If a candidate wins 51% of the vote he gets all the electoral votes. This is somewhat unfair since it widens the gap between a candidate's actual support and his electoral votes, it also makes close elections look like "landslides". Also the current system makes candidates focus on some states ("swing states") while ignoring the rest of the states.

Wouldn't it be better for all the states to go by Congressional districts, like Maine and Nebraska do? Say for example a Candidate wins in 2 Congressional districts in CT and loses the other 3, he should get 3 Electoral Votes and the other guy should get the remaining 4 votes.

I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.Omni-Slash

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a non-tax paying welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.nocoolnamejim

How many times did candidate visit New Mexico, Idaho, Montana or Alaska during this election cycle?

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker

You're right, what were we thinking? Here you go poor guy, your vote only counts as half as much as that rich doctor man's vote over there.

Well I live in Ohio, so it's in my interest for the United States to keep the current electoral college system.

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a non-tax paying welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker

[QUOTE="Boddicker"]

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

StrifeDelivery

You're right, what were we thinking? Here you go poor guy, your vote only counts as half as much as that rich doctor man's vote over there.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I know it goes against your romantic "Schoolhouse Rock" view of America, but we're heading for disaster.

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

[QUOTE="Boddicker"]

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker

You're right, what were we thinking? Here you go poor guy, your vote only counts as half as much as that rich doctor man's vote over there.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I know it goes against your romantic "Schoolhouse Rock" view of America, but we're heading for disaster.

That'd probably be even worse. Congressional districts are absurdly gerrymandered - in Pennsylvania for example Obama won the popular vote by a few percentage points yet managed to win only 5 out of 18 congressional districts in the state. Even though Republicans won the house, more people nationally voted for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. If the electoral college worked nationally like it does in Maine and Nebraska Romney would be president-elect right now. -Sun_Tzu-

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm in favor of a direct national popular vote.nocoolnamejim

I'm a Democrat in Idaho, so yes, I know exactly how you feel. But my point is that the incentives are the same with either direct national popular vote (which is the most little-d democratic method of choosing a winner) and proportional electoral vote. In both cases, the best course of action for campaigns is to run up huge margins of victory in high population states that support you. Sure, Romney may have spent a little more time campaigning in New York if it's electoral votes were allocated proportionally, but Obama sure wouldn't have spent anymore time in Idaho. In other words, your state - and your vote - would be more relevant, but mine wouldn't.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"] no...this would mean that the vast majority of the country would go ignored....I think electoral votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state......whipassmt

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]That'd probably be even worse. Congressional districts are absurdly gerrymandered - in Pennsylvania for example Obama won the popular vote by a few percentage points yet managed to win only 5 out of 18 congressional districts in the state. Even though Republicans won the house, more people nationally voted for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. If the electoral college worked nationally like it does in Maine and Nebraska Romney would be president-elect right now. whipassmt

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm a Democrat in Idaho, so yes, I know exactly how you feel. But my point is that the incentives are the same with either direct national popular vote (which is the most little-d democratic method of choosing a winner) and proportional electoral vote. In both cases, the best course of action for campaigns is to run up huge margins of victory in high population states that support you. Sure, Romney may have spent a little more time campaigning in New York if it's electoral votes were allocated proportionally, but Obama sure wouldn't have spent anymore time in Idaho. In other words, your state - and your vote - would be more relevant, but mine wouldn't.Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm a Democrat in Idaho, so yes, I know exactly how you feel. But my point is that the incentives are the same with either direct national popular vote (which is the most little-d democratic method of choosing a winner) and proportional electoral vote. In both cases, the best course of action for campaigns is to run up huge margins of victory in high population states that support you. Sure, Romney may have spent a little more time campaigning in New York if it's electoral votes were allocated proportionally, but Obama sure wouldn't have spent anymore time in Idaho. In other words, your state - and your vote - would be more relevant, but mine wouldn't.Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]That'd probably be even worse. Congressional districts are absurdly gerrymandered - in Pennsylvania for example Obama won the popular vote by a few percentage points yet managed to win only 5 out of 18 congressional districts in the state. Even though Republicans won the house, more people nationally voted for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. If the electoral college worked nationally like it does in Maine and Nebraska Romney would be president-elect right now. -Sun_Tzu-

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Why do you think the vast majority of the country would go ignored under a direct national popular vote? I would think it would be the opposite. States that used to get virtually no attention because they were reliably red or blue would get attention and matter.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] mmm. I hadn't realized that. I figure proportional would've made Obama and Romney closer, but maybe it would've given Romney too much representation. I did do some searches and I found out that Republicans do dominate Pennsylvania's Congressional delegation and legislature, even thouhg Penn tends to favor Democratic Presidents.

Strategically speaking though I do wonder why the Republicans, who control the legislature and the Governor's office in Pennsylvania didn't try to go proportional, just for the sake of making it much harder for Democrats to get elected president. Maybe such a change would require a ballot referendum that wouldn't pass the voters due to opposition from the urban areas, or maybe state-Republicans don't feel like creating controversy in order to benefit the national party without doing anything for them at the state level.

I do hear some states use independent commissions to draw the districts instead of legislatures (who usually draw in favor of their parties).

I don't know if my state is gerrymandered or not, though I know that part of my city is in one Congressional district and another part is in the other.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] I got a better idea. Base electoral votes on contiguity of territory. This way if you win a swath of contiguous states you get more votes than somebody who wins a smathering of isolated states.

whipassmt

The colonial America's restriction of voting rights to land owners was a step in the right direction, believe it or not. When a non-tax paying welfare/food stamp receving crackhead's vote matters as much as a doctor's/business owner's/etc. vote something is wrong.

People that are invested into the future of this country should have more of a say than someone who only cares about what free stuff they can get.

Boddicker

Well you just confirmed that you're a moron

I'm in favor of popular vote and just removing the electoral college

Here's how I'd rearrange it..

• Elect House members as per usual
• Distribute Senate seats proportional to electoral college wins (as it is now)
• President elected according to popular vote

That way you get your regional representation in the House, the Senate will balance out states that have low populations, and the President is elected based on the true will of the people.

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.nocoolnamejim

Isn't a nice looking map than this little puny mess of scattered territrees.

Also I forgot to mention, another advantage of contiguous states is that they're easier to travel through.

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

jimkabrhel

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I literally have no idea why you place such an absurdly high value on the geography of the states in question and can see no logical reason why "contiguous" states should get more votes than "isolated" states other than an attempt to gain partisan advantage.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I don't have a better answer to those already offered, but here's an interesting map of the voting percentages by county:

Fightingfan

With a popular vote candidates would end up spending more time in more states but they would focus primarily only on the cities of those states. If your state has no big city then tough luck.Diablo-B

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] 1. It looks better on a map 2. It's more defensible 3. the isolated states tend to have more urban areas with high population density 4. The contiguous states produce a lot of the major resources, like oil (Texas) and Corn, Wheat, taters, so if they cut those things off the isolated states would be in deep doody.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 1. Who cares how something looks on a map? 2. Who cares how defensible something is? There is 0% chance of anyone invading the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 3. What's wrong with higher population density? The whole point of a democracy is majority rule. 4. Resource allocation is irrelevant, but for what it's worth those "high population density" states are much more important economicallynocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?whipassmt

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?whipassmt

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Considering winning the popular vote but losing the EC happened maybe 4 times.....might be a bit off...in history...does it really make much of a difference?LJS9502_basic