Thoughts on this?

Maybe, but it could end up narrowing the focus. Just as a democrat won't focus on a red state, why focus on a red district in a blue state. Instead focus on the swing districts in red states.

Rion said:

It definitely would force candidates to stop focusing on large cities alone, which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Would it? I think candidates would generally ignore states that go this route and focus on winner-take-all swing states. How much attention did Maine and Nebraska get during the past few elections?

It goes against the popular vote, so I am vehemently against it. Candidates should get electiral votes based on their popular vote.

I think if all states went to this, we would have a much more realistic vote of the Electoral College. I also think that more people would feel like their vote counts for something too.

In my state, all the votes went for Obama last year. If the system used in Nebraska would have been in place, it would have been 3 - 3 which would have more accurately reflected the views of this state, the swing state that we are.

Marek said:

Would it? I think candidates would generally ignore states that go this route and focus on winner-take-all swing states. How much attention did Maine and Nebraska get during the past few elections?

Click to expand...

I have experience with Nebraska. Nebraska tends to go Republican so therefore, they usually don't get much attention anyway, not just the last few elections. The 1st Congressional District is kind of a swing district though.

This last election, their 5 EC votes went to Romney, but sometimes, they may have one EC vote for the Democratic candidate.

QuiltAngel said:

I have experience with Nebraska. Nebraska tends to go Republican so therefore, they usually don't get much attention anyway, not just the last few elections. The 1st Congressional District is kind of a swing district though.

This last election, their 5 EC votes went to Romney, but sometimes, they may have one EC vote for the Democratic candidate.

Click to expand...

I realize that. What I'm saying is candidates are going to be less likely to put much effort into winning a congressional district, where the prize is one measly electoral vote, when they could be putting effort into winning large swing states. The idea that if a state like Virginia adopts this method of allocation, the candidates will suddenly pay more attention to them, is ridiculous.

I wonder, if Republicans are so in favor of this idea, would they be willing to adopt it in states like Texas, Georgia, etc.? Or is it just good for the states that went to Obama last year?

Why should Republicans or Democrats have any direct control over how the process works? Why is that any better than deep political corruption of the system? How can it be just for a political party to decide how it it elected? It will obviously be corrupt and biased. You can't just change the rules if you are losing.

Why not give it an independent body to decide?

Had this system been in place nationwide for the last election Rmoney would have won the electoral college while only receiving 47% of the popular vote. Given the current gerrymandering it is projected that a Democratic presidential candidate would have to win around 56% of the popular vote to get elected.

I also find it interesting that the same people that tout the infallibility of the free market are now floating ideas on how to rig the system once they recognized that they are loosing big in the 'marketplace of ideas'.

Paradoxum said:

Why should Republicans or Democrats have any direct control over how the process works? Why is that any better than deep political corruption of the system? How can it be just for a political party to decide how it it elected? It will obviously be corrupt and biased. You can't just change the rules if you are losing.

Why not give it an independent body to decide?

Click to expand...

Actually, we had our system set up from the start in order to eliminate this kind of Corruption and Party Bias.

We've already deterred significantly from the Out-line laid out by our Founding Fathers (much of it was very much needed because they did not anticipate the Growth that our Country underwent) but Changing the Electorate like this would be shredding one of the last vestiges of the original design.

Not crazy about this or our current electoral system, we should just have a straight popular vote. Why should someone's vote 'count' more depending on where they live?

Pure power grab. Nothing more, nothing less.

Crusader05 said:

Not crazy about this or our current electoral system, we should just have a straight popular vote. Why should someone's vote 'count' more depending on where they live?

Click to expand...

The greatest portion of our population is along both coasts. If we went to a straight popular vote, you will disenfranchise the middle portion of the country. The coasts tend to be liberal and the middle more conservative. There would be no need to campaign in the middle part of the country as the vote would be won on the coasts.

All anyone is saying, and I have heard it from both sides, is that the electoral college needs to be looked at and maybe revised. A better way to reflect the popular vote even. This would also mean that the candidates would have to visit states other than the swing states.

If EC votes will be awarded proportionately to the popular vote, then why not just go with the popular vote? Who needs the middle men? Everyone's vote throughout the entire country adds to the candidate's total. The voters elect the President directly--not states, or Congressional districts. That's the simplest and fairest way.

The two biggest problems are:

1) Requires a Constitutional amendment.

2) Allows the possibility that a 3rd party candidate may prevent anyone from winning a majority.

There's a sensible way around #2. But it completely changes how Presidential races are conducted. A two-stage election. All candidates from all parties will first run in a national primary. The top 2 vote getters will choose their VPs and run against each other in the general election. They could both be from the same party, or from different, or 3rd parties. This system lets the voters chose the nominees, not party activists. And it may finally break the hold that the 2 major parties have on the Presidency. If the Constitution is being amended to eliminate the EC, why not go all the way?

BTW: An amendment to allow Congress to cap campaign spending on Presidential races, and to let state legislatures cap spending on their Senate/House/state official elections is also sorely needed.

QuiltAngel said:

The greatest portion of our population is along both coasts. If we went to a straight popular vote, you will disenfranchise the middle portion of the country. The coasts tend to be liberal and the middle more conservative. There would be no need to campaign in the middle part of the country as the vote would be won on the coasts.

All anyone is saying, and I have heard it from both sides, is that the electoral college needs to be looked at and maybe revised. A better way to reflect the popular vote even. This would also mean that the candidates would have to visit states other than the swing states.

Click to expand...

We can't have Democracy, there are too many people who disagree with me! Rig the system so that as the country's attitudes change and the population grows in liberal areas, I get a stronger weighted vote than them!

Oh btw, the heavily-gerrymandered districts in Virginia, where this sort of thing has been proposed, would lead to the vote of heavily-black, heavily-democratic districts counting about 3/5 that of the other districts in the state.

I would prefer a split of electoral votes according to the popular vote totals. If a candidate receives 51% of the votes in a state that candidate would get 51% of the electoral votes. This would avoid the problem of gerrymandered districts and reenfranchise those in states that are not in swing states. Further it ends the silliness of a candidate getting every electoral vote in a state that only slightly favored him/her.Finally it would not require a Constitutional Amendment as changing the system to a strict popular vote would.

grasping the after wind said:

I would prefer a split of electoral votes according to the popular vote totals. If a candidate receives 51% of the votes in a state that candidate would get 51% of the electoral votes. This would avoid the problem of gerrymandered districts and reenfranchise those in states that are not in swing states. Further it ends the silliness of a candidate getting every electoral vote in a state that only slightly favored him/her.Finally it would not require a Constitutional Amendment as changing the system to a strict popular vote would.

Click to expand...

Actually, a popular vote doesn't require a constitutional Amendment. All it takes is for a compact of states comprising at least 270 electoral votes to agree to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Currently, 8 states and DC comprising 132 electoral votes have agreed to such a system, to take effect once the compact reaches 270 electoral votes.

It would favor whichever party controlled the state legislators. May the best gerrymanderer win.

QuiltAngel said:

The greatest portion of our population is along both coasts. If we went to a straight popular vote, you will disenfranchise the middle portion of the country. The coasts tend to be liberal and the middle more conservative. There would be no need to campaign in the middle part of the country as the vote would be won on the coasts.

Click to expand...

Well, if the coastal populations by themselves can win a nationwide election, it just means that is where a majority of the voters are. And the President should be elected by a majority of the voters, no matter where they live. But I strongly doubt that people in coastal states vote so overwhelmingly in one direction, that they can swing an election.