Proportional Allocation of Eelectoral Votes

[pegwinn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pegwinn
I'm sorry you live in a state where your vote doesn't count at all. I personally believe the "electors" should actually by your congressional rep and the law should require him or her to vote with the population of his/her district.

Actually her vote does count. Since the electors are chosen by the party that wins the nomination and are generally chosen based on their loyalty, they almost always vote the same way that the state votes. There have only been a handful of times when the electors haven't voted the same way as the population, and nowadays that just wouldn't fly.

I'm sorry, I must disagree. Using Jillian as an example, her vote for POTUS doesn't count because she claims to live in one of the non-binding states. How can her vote be considered to count if the electors are not legally bound to honor it. That handful of times is a handful too many IMO. And, it would fly (at least once) because there is no mechanism in place to prevent or punish it.

Quote:
Even though faithless electors have never conspired to fix an election, it doesn't mean it cannot happen. Thus the need to ensure that it cannot.

If the two political parties are conspiring to fix an election, I think we've got larger problems than the electors.

I would tend to agree. But it is within the realm of possibility for the electors to decide to say "hell wit dat" and go on their own. "Thus the need......"

Quote:
Using math the smaller states votes are apparently worth more than yours. Let's remember that your vote for president doesn't count at all unless you are an elector.

Yes, votes in small states ARE worth more than hers (and mine for that matter). Your second statement is incorrect.

I'm sorry, I must disagree. The "value" of the vote is a math issue. It isn't a reality issue. The reality is that smaller states don't have the leverage to make a difference. Hmmmm....... unless all thier electors conspired to...... With respect, you will have to demonstrate that my second statement is incorrect in a factual, practical manner. BTW, I would really love for you to take a shot and prove me wrong. It might go a ways toward removing some of my cynicism.

Quote:
Which means that depending on the smaller state we look at, they could also be worth nothing. Numerical superiority trumps relative value every time. Your state still has more influence in the process than Wyoming.

No, it doesn't. My state has more influence than Wyoming as a whole, but on a per-person basis I don't. I don't really care how much influence the guy down the hall or down the street has, I care how much influence I have.

Fair enough. You don't care. I am cool with that. In that POV this is an apples/oranges thing. But, did you notice that you said I was wrong and then said I was right? Must've been a long day huh?

Quote:
You also mentioned disproportionate representation in the Senate. That's actually a different discussion. There is a thread

It is different, but related. Wyoming is grossly over-represented in the Senate, and the House, it doesn't need to be grossly over-represented in the EC as well.

How so?

Quote:
To put it mildly, a true democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Here are some things that may never have happened had we not maintained a republican form of .gov. BTW I am using those words as descriptors and not as a political party title, Fair nuff?

Yes, Democracy does suck. I am all for a Republic, but the EC doesn't make it a republic, the fact that we vote for representatives to represent us makes it a republic.

I'm sorry, I must disagree but only mildly. The EC is part and parcel of our Republic/Federalist form of government. It's all about checks and balances. BTW, you do know that the only election we were meant to vote in originally was for the House right?

Today was a loooooong day. C'ya round.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm sorry, I must disagree. Using Jillian as an example, her vote for POTUS doesn't count because she claims to live in one of the non-binding states. How can her vote be considered to count if the electors are not legally bound to honor it.

You are confusing what might happen with what does happen. Might it not count? Yes. In reality, does it count? yes. Is that necessarily what must happen legally? No. In reality is that what happens almost every time? Yes. Her vote counts because regardless of legality electors DO honor it. I'm not legally bound to go to the dry cleaners down the street as opposed to across town, but yet it matters very much to them that I go to them. The money they recieve is real, just as the electoral votes that the candidates recieve, as a direct result of Jillians vote is real.

There doesn't need to be a mechanism to prevent it. I don't think it should be prevented. You claim you are against mob rule, well this is a defence against that. If the mob majority picks Hitler for president, the electorors has an option not to choose them.

I would tend to agree. But it is within the realm of possibility for the electors to decide to say "hell wit dat" and go on their own. "Thus the need......"

And there are clear and compelling reasons to allow them the freedom of their choice, especially considering the extremely rare circumstances that they will vote for anyone other than their political party.

I'm sorry, I must disagree. The "value" of the vote is a math issue. It isn't a reality issue. The reality is that smaller states don't have the leverage to make a difference.

It is a math issue, but you must realize that my interest in choosing a presidential candidate is not only based on state interests, but on personal interests. I'm not voting for a president based on how much he will benefit my state, I'm voting on how much he will benefit me. Thus, as I said, it doesn't matter what people down the street think.

How so?

Certainly you realize how Wyoming is grossly over-represented in the Senate, yes? 1 vote per 200k, while my state gets 1 vote per 15 mil (or something like that).

As for the house, its basically the same as the EC....they get more votes per person than NY, or any other state, does.

I'm sorry, I must disagree but only mildly. The EC is part and parcel of our Republic/Federalist form of government

It is part and parcel of OUR form of government...not of a republic government per se. We decided to do it because we are a confederation of states, there is nothing inherently republic about it. And as we become more federalized and communication becomes more global and national there is less and less of a reason to allow citizens of Wyoming disproportionate power over other citizens.

It's all about checks and balances. BTW, you do know that the only election we were meant to vote in originally was for the House right?

The only check/balance the EC is, is a check against the mob which you want to get rid of. Otherwise its just a way of giving small states more power than they should have. There is reason to give them power in the senate/house, but voting for the presidency? No reason at all.

And no, we were always meant to vote for the president. There was just a level in between them. Talk theoretics all you want, but the fact is that electors being able to choose differently than their state has NEVER affected the outcome of a presidential election.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Land shouldn't vote. My vote should be equal to someone living in idaho. It's absurd and its vestigial process of a bygone era that needs to be rethought.

Spoken just like a "progressive" lib.

Land, along with people, is what makes up this country. I can think of a lot of good land that deserves as much, or more, representation than some sniveling lib in his city anthill apt.

Land is what makes up the different states (something libs oppose).
Land is what supports our cities in many ways (city libs don't get that)
Land is what private property is all about (something libs don't respect)
Land is why borders matter (something libs want to erase).

What next after you "progressives" destroy the electoral college? Erase the 2 senators per state rule as well?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Spoken just like a "progressive" lib.

Land, along with people, is what makes up this country. I can think of a lot of good land that deserves as much, or more, representation than some sniveling lib in his city anthill apt.

Land is what makes up the different states (something libs oppose).
Land is what supports our cities in many ways (city libs don't get that)
Land is what private property is all about (something libs don't respect)
Land is why borders matter (something libs want to erase).

What next after you "progressives" destroy the electoral college? Erase the 2 senators per state rule as well?

As a matter of fact she has already said each State should NOT have 2 Senators each and further she has stated Wyoming doesn't even deserve its single Representative.

 

[jillian]

As a matter of fact she has already said each State should NOT have 2 Senators each and further she has stated Wyoming doesn't even deserve its single Representative.

What I said was nothing else in our system should be changed except for the electoral college. Where did I say the senate shouldn't be retained as it currently exists or that Wyoming doesn't deserve it's single representative?

I'll wait....

 

[Dr Grump]

Right. The United States of America is a collection of sovereigns, not a nation of its own. Liberals have never understood this. The Constitution is a pact between the states, in part.

It WAS a nation of sovereigns (maybe). it is now a country. You have a common currency and you have a pledge of allegence that is to a country. In order to visit different countries, you need a passport. not a Massachusetts passport, not a Virginia passport, not a North Carolina passport, but a US passport. if it is a pact, then what was Ames (the Soviet spy) guilty of? Treason against Maryland? Alaska? Hawaii? You statists are livign in the past...

 

[jillian]

It WAS a nation of sovereigns (maybe). it is now a country. You have a common currency and you have a pledge of allegence that is to a country. In order to visit different countries, you need a passport. not a Massachusetts passport, not a Virginia passport, not a North Carolina passport, but a US passport. if it is a pact, then what was Ames (the Soviet spy) guilty of? Treason against Maryland? Alaska? Hawaii? You statists are livign in the past...

Not to mention that battle was fought and won with the civil war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What I said was nothing else in our system should be changed except for the electoral college. Where did I say the senate shouldn't be retained as it currently exists or that Wyoming doesn't deserve it's single representative?

I'll wait....

You stated that Wyoming was over represented in the Congress.

 

[jillian]

You stated that Wyoming was over represented in the Congress.

No. I didn't. I said the electoral college vote of a person in Idaho shouldn't be worth more than mine.

Again, please find the post where I said the senate shouldn't exist in it's current form and wyoming shouldn't be represented at all...

like I said, I'll wait.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You stated that Wyoming was over represented in the Congress.

Ohh wait I was wrong, you said Idaho was over represented in Congress..

Which it should. We have a larger population. Those votes shouldn't be worth three of ours. I'm sorry, I think each person's vote should be worth the same. As someone else pointed out, Idaho is already represented disproportionately in the Senate.

 

[jillian]

Ohh wait I was wrong, you said Idaho was over represented in Congress..

But did I say to change it?

Nope.

 

[Dr Grump]

Getting back to the original question, I think electorial college should absolutely be proportional. Have advocated that on many board and threads over the past five years. Taken to its nth degree, if 7,000,000 voters in California vote democrate and 7,000,001 vote repub then according to the number of EC votes available 28 go to repub and 27 to dem. You enfranchise both parties and the party most wanted in power get the majority...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Getting back to the original question, I think electorial college should absolutely be proportional. Have advocated that on many board and threads over the past five years. Taken to its nth degree, if 7,000,000 voters in California vote democrate and 7,000,001 vote repub then according to the number of EC votes available 28 go to repub and 27 to dem. You enfranchise both parties and the party most wanted in power get the majority...

And again if we do that we will end up with the Congress choosing our President and Vice President.

I suggest you READ what happens when the electoral College can not get the required votes for a win.

 

[Dr Grump]

And again if we do that we will end up with the Congress choosing our President and Vice President.

I suggest you READ what happens when the electoral College can not get the required votes for a win.

hhhmmmm...you might have a point. This foreigner is not 100% on how it works. However, if each state allocated its vote proportionally, what are the odds of it being tied?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hhhmmmm...you might have a point. This foreigner is not 100% on how it works. However, if each state allocated its vote proportionally, what are the odds of it being tied?

The electoral college requires a clear majority , not just a simple majority.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The electoral college requires a clear majority , not just a simple majority.

Ok I am wrong. The amendment says that the person with the most votes, as long as this is a majority of all votes, wins.

However we have 535 electors based on Congressional and Senatorial seats. Who knows how many extra electors have been added since I know a person needs 270 plus to win?

Looks like proportional would work after all. I have to take back my complaint.

I will state though that proportional should be on the vote State wide to avoid gerrymandering and that the State winner should get the 2 senatorial electors.

See Grump I can admit when I make a mistake ).

 

[Dr Grump]

The electoral college requires a clear majority , not just a simple majority.

Fair enough. So what is a simple majority compared to a clear majority?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fair enough. So what is a simple majority compared to a clear majority?

I think this is plurality v majority.

Plurality is 'more than anyone else'.
Majority is 'more than half'.

The requirement is for a majority, not a plurality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually that is what Jillian is arguing for, but she is arguing for it on the level of the entire country, not just the blue states.

That's up to the states, themselves.
The question HERE is if CA should adpot this.

 

[Dr Grump]

So the question has to be asked:

What is the downside of dividing the EC by proportional vote within each state? That would enfranchise all voters. Not only would it split hte vote fairly, but it would make voters feel their vote was worth something. For example, NY. Everybody knows NY is liberal. However, would more repubs vote if they thought a certain percentage of the EC vote would go towards the final vote with regard to the president.

Might I add here, for a country that was founded on the principle that govt was all about the people, you folk sure do give one individual a hell of a lot of power - whether it be a Clinton or a Bush.....