Why is it a winner take all system? Does anyone defend this as so? Why can't a candidate get a # of votes up for grabs simply based on the results of the popular vote? Say Texas has 20 votes up for grab and the (R) gets 50% of the popular vs 50% for the (D). Why not give 10 to each candidate? Has this happened in the past...ever? From my recollection of poli-sci in college [11+ yrs ago], the electoral college is actually the ones who cast their vote to award a state to a president but they're supposed to vote based on the will of the voters. This seems conflicting. Not an election junkie by any means and this issue just seems to be another short coming of our 'democracy.'
Simple answer is that every state sets its own rules on how to pick electors. If your state allocates its votes proportionally, and other states are winner-take-all, your state becomes far less important - so no major state will do that. Maine and Nebraska do have hybrid systems - for example, Obama won 1 electoral vote from Nebraska last time around by winning one of their congressional districts.
I saw a story on this on CBS Sunday Morning a couple of weeks ago. There is a "plan" being promoted and already accepted in some states that would have the electoral votes split proportionally in line with the state's popular vote. It's been developed and promoted by a legislator from Maryland who is also a professor of political science. Also, the electors are only honor-bound to cast their vote in the way indicated currently. In the past electors have gone against the current-- only a few times and I believe without "punishment." They interviewed one elector and he claimed (joking or not) that he thought he was the only one to have applied for the position. He was not the mayor of some town; he was a twenty-something anybody.
Sorry - didn't mean to hit send. This is the flipside of what you're referring to - there is a movement to make states vote for the national popular vote winner as well, to essentially remove the electoral college from the equation. Maryland actually has already passed this into law - so I don't see any likelihood they switch to the opposite more.
I would like to hear a solid debate on why we should keep the system the way it is now. I think like most Americans in the 40 plus states, we are tired of our (national) vote not counting. In my case, I moved to Georgia and for whatever reason Im not showing registered. I probably won't bother trying to get it sorted out. If I was still in NC, I certainly would. I believe a popular vote method would change the dynamics of the voting field. I believe more people would get out and vote. Also, I think we would have difference candidates. While liberals tend to support their candidate regardless, Republicans will be forced to put out candidates that support their ideologue instead of ones trying to pander to the handful of swing states.
Agreed - the EC had a purpose at one time when there were logistical reasons for it, but I have yet to hear a good reason for it to remain in existence today.
That's what it all comes down to. Every election shouldn't have to come down to 5 or 6 states and the undecided swing voter. I think a candidate should have to earn every vote. I know there are some conservative voters in very liberal leaning states like Cali & Illinois and I'm sure they feel somewhat disenfranchised like liberal voters in states like Texas might feel. Everybody's vote should count. Electoral college is preventing that.
Absolutely agree, especially regarding the Republican candidates having to appeal to a more national audience.
In my humble opinion if we were to have an honest, transparent popular vote system Republicans would never win a national election again.
Based on? History? Politico polls? CFBBS D&D polls? Wishful thinking? Only four presidents have lost the popular but won the electoral.
It is unfortunate but a lot of people tie voting with their ability to vote for the president. If you live in a state where the outcome in the state is a given, there is less of an incentive to vote. Nevermind that your state might have competitive statewide races, congressional and senate races, state legislative races, ballot measures, etc.. The electoral college flat out depresses turnout in this country. A national popular vote would significantly increase turnout. We're still running on an election system that was designed by some old white guys to suppress the vote of people they thought were too stupid to make informed decisions. We're past that. This system has to go.
I agree -- a very small percentage of America decides elections cycle after cycle and that is just wrong.
Yeah, now we have old white guys trying to suppress the vote of people they think are too stupid to make informed decisions, but today they are using "Voter ID" in addition to the antiquated EC to make that happen.
It's a horrible idea. Im thinking about not voting for president in vain hopes Obama loses the popular vote, repubs become indignant and start a movement to ditch the EC.
Once again, based on that partisan republican Nemesis- math. The EC overvalues rural and low density voters who are majority red and dilutes urban voters. Guess which side benefits?
In part, the GOP has won the popular vote in only one of the last 6 elections, and is struggling again this year despite all the external conditions (economy, unemployment, etc) favoring them. As Lindsey Graham said, "The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
The argument for the EC is the same argument for why we have a Senate. It is is to keep small states relevant. If we didn't have an EC the overwhelming amount of campaigning and pandering would be targeted in the populous states and even there only a few handful of counties as many regions of the most populous states already lean heavily one way or the other. At the same time as a fully national campaign you are going to see even more spending on TV ads than you see now and very little emphasis on retail politics. I am not saying that the EC is perfect and it certainly has problems but a national election only dependent on the popular vote is going to have problems too. Finally it will take a Constitutional amendment to do away with the EC as a whole and even if a majority of Americans don't support it it is unlikely 3/4 of the states will agree to do away with it as smaller states and current battle ground states (Ohio, FL, IA and etc.) will want to see there importance diminish.
That was true way back when - but it doesn't work anymore. What small states get attention paid to them now? New Hampshire? No one is paying attention to Rhode Island or Utah or Hawaii or Alasaka. And keep in mind, while there are tons more people in the big states, winning by huge margins in the small states can overwhelm that. That was the strategy Obama used in the primaries to upend Hillary. He let her win the big expensive states like California - and he matched those results by racking up huge margins in the areas she ignored like Montana and Wyoming. For example, looking at 2008, Obama won Ohio by about the same margin as McCain won Idaho (200,000 votes). Yet, Ohio mattered and Idaho didn't. If you have popular vote, Idaho suddenly matters again, and it's in Obama's best interest to try to narrow the margin there. Such as? Technically, yes. In practice? Not at all. States with 270 EC votes have to pass the National Popular Vote. About 130-140 EVs worth of mostly liberal states have already done so. If Romney wins the popular vote and loses the election, you can bet a bunch of GOP states will look at doing so as well. I'd guess by 2024, the EC is irrelevant.
