Proportional Allocation of Eelectoral Votes

[M14 Shooter]

There is an initiative in CA to change the state law to allocate electoral votes according to the proportion of votes cast foe each candidate, rather than the current Winner Takes All system:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-07-17_07-0032_Initiative.pdf

Certainly, this will better reflect the will of the people and more effectively represent the people od CA in the electoral college.

Should CA adopt this?
Why or why not?

 

[Gunny]

There is an initiative in CA to change the state law to allocate electoral votes according to the proportion of votes cast foe each candidate, rather than the current Winner Takes All system:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-07-17_07-0032_Initiative.pdf

Certainly, this will better reflect the will of the people and more effectively represent the people od CA in the electoral college.

Should CA adopt this?
Why or why not?

Can't say I'm a fan of the electoral votes at all. Seems to me the popular vote allows the individual his say, while the electoral vote disenfranchises the minority voter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can't say I'm a fan of the electoral votes at all. Seems to me the popular vote allows the individual his say, while the electoral vote disenfranchises the minority voter.

Perhaps. But, given that the smaller states will never allow the replacement of the EC with something else, that's the system we have and the system we WILL have.

CA looks to better prepresent its voters through proportional allocation. Should it?

 

[82Marine89]

Living in California and seeing this state being controlled by a minority of counties that have the largest populace, I would support this bill. It would help restore our voice.

Red is Republican.
Blue is democrat
Pink is Right leaning
Lt. Blue is left leaning.

 

[Paulie]

Can't say I'm a fan of the electoral votes at all. Seems to me the popular vote allows the individual his say, while the electoral vote disenfranchises the minority voter.

Gunny, i really think the only thing you and I don't see eye to eye on is necessity for war.

I think the electoral college is a joke.

The people ALONE should pick the president, just like they pick anyone else for office in this country.

 

[jillian]

Living in California and seeing this state being controlled by a minority of counties that have the largest populace, I would support this bill. It would help restore our voice.

Red is Republican.
Blue is democrat
Pink is Right leaning
Lt. Blue is left leaning.

You aren't looking at population. You're looking at land. The electoral college allows LAND to vote, established in an agrarian, aristocratic society.

And pssssssssssst... the most populace counties SHOULD have a larger say. They're more populace. Or do you think people living in a county with 1,500 people should have the same say as, oh, I don't know, LA?

 

[pegwinn]

The electoral college is an equalizer for the smaller states. Thus Good.

I think the only modification needed is proportional. Each congressional district gets a vote. Then they get two additional. One for the state legislature and one for the state govenor.

Just remember that the sainted founders never intended for us to vote except in the house elections.

 

[jillian]

The electoral college is an equalizer for the smaller states. Thus Good.

I think the only modification needed is proportional. Each congressional district gets a vote. Then they get two additional. One for the state legislature and one for the state govenor.

Just remember that the sainted founders never intended for us to vote except in the house elections.

Why should someone from, oh, I don't know, rural town, Iowa, have more of a say in who president of the u.s. is than I do?

Why good?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Living in California and seeing this state being controlled by a minority of counties that have the largest populace, I would support this bill. It would help restore our voice.

Red is Republican.
Blue is democrat
Pink is Right leaning
Lt. Blue is left leaning.

Lame.

Bush fans love those maps that shows seas of red.

It's irrelevant. Land mass and geography don't vote. People vote.

I've been in most of those red counties on your map. In most of them, there are more cows, more chickens, and more rice fields than there are people. They are dominated by vast areas of empy farm land, forest, and grazing land. Rice fields and cows don't vote.

 

[Alpha1]

The electoral College is proportional .....

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment.

It tries to protect the minority from the majority....


Otherwise, California and New York might just a well pick the new president...

 

[Annie]

The electoral College is proportional .....

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment.

It tries to protect the minority from the majority....


Otherwise, California and New York might just a well pick the new president...

SSSSssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh They have been enjoying this. While part of the reason for the electoral college was Founder's fears of 'the mob', ala Plato's Republic, (same reason they had for choosing Senators by the state legislatures), the second premise was how to protect the minority opinions and small states from the tyranny of the majority and large states.

 

[pegwinn]

Why should someone from, oh, I don't know, rural town, Iowa, have more of a say in who president of the u.s. is than I do? They don't

Why good? Because if we vote one body to one vote and the winner is he whom gets the most warm bodies then you will never see a candidate except in major population centers.

The election process is still dorked up but it is better than mob rule.

 

[indago]

Contrary to popular belief, and the particular phrasing uttered by Abraham Lincoln in a short speech that he gave at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in November, 1863, that the United States government is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", the United States government is a corporation created by the States to perform certain functions that they were unable, or unwilling, to perform. Each State is a corporation, created by the people within that State; the hierarchical arrangement being declared in Article Ten of the Bill of Rights, which declares: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The federal government is not a peoples government, but a creation of the States. The "Chairman of the Board", or President, is, therefore, selected by vote of Electors from the States.

The function of the Electoral College is explained in the Constitution of the United States, in Article 2 Section 2, and the twelfth amendment. The party that wins the most votes in a state receives all of its electoral college votes. Votes cast for defeated candidates do not count.

In the United States presidential election of 1876, the Democratic candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, received 4,284,020 popular votes; the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes received 4,036,572 popular votes; but Hayes became president. Similarly, Benjamin Harrison got fewer popular votes than did Grover Cleveland in the 1888 presidential election.

 

[maineman]

Living in California and seeing this state being controlled by a minority of counties that have the largest populace, I would support this bill. It would help restore our voice.

Red is Republican.
Blue is democrat
Pink is Right leaning
Lt. Blue is left leaning.

but alas...artichokes don't vote!

the red is where the vegetables are...the other colors are where the PEOPLE are!

 

[82Marine89]

You aren't looking at population. You're looking at land. The electoral college allows LAND to vote, established in an agrarian, aristocratic society.

And pssssssssssst... the most populace counties SHOULD have a larger say. They're more populace. Or do you think people living in a county with 1,500 people should have the same say as, oh, I don't know, LA?

Lame.

Bush fans love those maps that shows seas of red.

It's irrelevant. Land mass and geography don't vote. People vote.

I've been in most of those red counties on your map. In most of them, there are more cows, more chickens, and more rice fields than there are people. They are dominated by vast areas of empy farm land, forest, and grazing land. Rice fields and cows don't vote.

but alas...artichokes don't vote!

the red is where the vegetables are...the other colors are where the PEOPLE are!

To the three of you I quote this;

The Democratic Party currently has an advantage of 1.3 million voters over the Republican Party (6.7 million to 5.4 million) or 8 percentage points (42.5% to 34.2%), according to the California Secretary of State.

That's 47% of the major party voters being Republicans. That's a lot of land that votes Jillian. That's a lot of rice fields and cows DCD. That's a lot of artichokes MaineBoy. Think about what would happen if 47% of California's electoral college votes went to a Republican candidate.

 

[maineman]

To the three of you I quote this;


That's 47% of the major party voters being Republicans. That's a lot of land that votes Jillian. That's a lot of rice fields and cows DCD. That's a lot of artichokes MaineBoy. Think about what would happen if 47% of California's electoral college votes went to a Republican candidate.

so what.... if every state did that, the popular vote would essentially win the election..... like 2000.....oops!

 

[Mr.Conley]

In response to pegwinn's comments about the electoral college, based on the current system, rural states DO hold undue weight in the electoral college. For example, Wyoming, with a total population of about 515,000 people, has 3 electoral votes, or one for every 171,667 individuals. In contrast, California,
with a total population of approximately 37,700,000, has only 55 electors, or one elector for about every 662,865. Using division, we can calculate that, in the electoral college, a vote in Wyoming is worth roughly 3.9 times as much as a vote in California, far from the One Citizen, One Vote ideal.

Now one could argue that this system somehow protects minorities from some sort of oppression, but I ask, what minority is being protected? The people of Wyoming?

 

[Annie]

In response to pegwinn's comments about the electoral college, based on the current system, rural states DO hold undue weight in the electoral college. For example, Wyoming, with a total population of about 515,000 people, has 3 electoral votes, or one for every 171,667 individuals. In contrast, California,
with a total population of approximately 37,700,000, has only 55 electors, or one elector for about every 662,865. Using division, we can calculate that, in the electoral college, a vote in Wyoming is worth roughly 3.9 times as much as a vote in California, far from the One Citizen, One Vote ideal.

Now one could argue that this system somehow protects minorities from some sort of oppression, but I ask, what minority is being protected? The people of Wyoming?

I already stated that the framers wanted to ensure protections of the minorities from tyranny of majorities AND small states from the will of Big states. 3 votes is the minimum a state may have in EC=2 senators + 1 rep.

 

[82Marine89]

so what.... if every state did that, the popular vote would essentially win the election..... like 2000.....oops!

So what? I prove you wrong and you can only say "So what?" Doesn't Maine split it's electoral college vote? Would you prefer they all go to the majority candidate and piss on the voice of the voter? Never mind, you're a democrat. You believe in socialism. I think that if we are going to use that system, then all states should follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine and apportion the vote by congressional district.

 

[maineman]

So what? I prove you wrong and you can only say "So what?" Doesn't Maine split it's electoral college vote? Would you prefer they all go to the majority candidate and piss on the voice of the voter? Never mind, you're a democrat. You believe in socialism. I think that if we are going to use that system, then all states should follow the lead of Nebraska and Maine and apportion the vote by congressional district.

I believe in "socialism"? what of your orifices did you extract that from?

I would completely support reducing the electoral college by 100 members and giving each state as many electoral college votes as they have congressional districts and to let them all be proportional.