What if Electoral College votes were split proportional to popular vote per state?

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by emilynghiem, Oct 29, 2012.

?

Should Electoral College be reformed?

Poll closed Jan 27, 2013.
  1. Yes, it should be abolished and only use popular vote

    23.8%
  2. No, keep it as is with winner taking all state votes

    47.6%
  3. Yes, reform by splitting votes per state to reflect % of popular votes

    4.8%
  4. Yes, I would petition the Electors to split the votes by % instead of winner taking all

    9.5%
  5. Other: please explain (please pick an option above before adding this one)

    14.3%
  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,488
    Thanks Received:
    1,864
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,241
    Dear USMB and Political Friends:
    My friend Lonnie and I disagree on the Electoral College.
    He thinks it should be eliminated all together, and just use popular vote only.
    We both agree it defeats the whole purpose of the Electoral College, which is to
    include all states, if the candidates start targeting just the swing states to get all their votes from the other candidate.

    I say it should be reformed, where the winners does not take all the votes per state
    but the % that reflects the proportion of the popular vote they actually won per state. So this would fulfill the purpose of the EC, which is to make sure all states are included regardless of population. It would still be by percentage, and would still reward the candidate winning the most popular votes, but would include all states equally by "proportion" of their population voting this way or that way, REGARDLESS of what size their population is compared with other states.

    What do you think of this idea?

    And since the 2012 election will be close to 50/50
    would you sign a petition to the College Electors to vote by proportion
    instead of winner takes all?

    I would love to get your input and ideas.
    Thank you very much!
    Emily Nghiem
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,488
    Thanks Received:
    1,864
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,241
    I guess I should add an option to post if you are voting Democrat or Republican!
    it seems the Electoral system favors Democrats this time in the swing states,
    but if the vote were split by proportion that favors Republicans overall.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2012
  3. TruthSeeker56
    Offline

    TruthSeeker56 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,899
    Thanks Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Ratings:
    +496
    What is the difference between a "proportional" Electoral College and eliminating the Electoral College completely and using just the popular vote?

    If you are going to divide up the Electoral College votes in every state based on the statewide percentage of votes for one candidate or the other, then you have totally defeated the purpose of the Electoral College.

    You end up with mostly Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas determining who the President will be every four years, and the rest of the votes from rural areas and smaller cities and towns won't matter.

    I don't want a handful of highly populated states determining who will be President every four years.
     
  4. Sarg
    Offline

    Sarg Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    The Electoral College guards against several things.

    Foremost among them is the relative ease of driving up turnout in big urban centers. Rent a few buses, offer free lunch, cruise up and down the streets dragging people to the polls. That's difficult in suburbs. The EC greatly decreases the utility of running up numbers in New York City, Los Angeles, Austin, Chicago, etc. Granted, it doesn't protect against the same in Philly and Cleveland, but it does allow campaigns with limited resources to focus turnout operations on their suburbs.

    Second, the EC offers a small inherent benefit to taking positions that appeal in larger numbers of states.

    Third, the EC prevents the need for national recounts. Imagine a Florida 2000 ... but with every precinct in the whole country. No close election would ever be decided by the voters - it'd come down to lawyers every time it was within 3 points.
     
  5. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,457
    Actually Nebraska and Maine can legally split their electoral votes. they are the only two states to allow this.

    The E C was placed there for a purpose. I have to agree with that purpose....
     
  6. gallantwarrior
    Online

    gallantwarrior Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    18,754
    Thanks Received:
    3,591
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    So far in the boonies, I'm not on google street vi
    Ratings:
    +6,065
    Under the current system where it's "winner takes all" of the electoral votes from one state, the urban areas are controlling election outcomes. And candidates only lobby in a few key EC states. The rest of the electorate might as well be dogshit on their shoes.
    The key reason that the EC was created is long past now, that being a geographically wide-spread electorate with limited transportation. Localized regions would elect a man to represent them at national elections, to cast 'their' vote as directed. With our technology, we are able to establish a more accurate 'one person, one vote' type of system that would more fairly reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate. So, to abolish the EC altogether is not unrealistic. If politically expedient to retain the EC, then the votes should be divided proportionally among all candidates. Some states do divide EC votes proportionally, I believe.
     
  7. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,457
    Without the EC my vote wouldn't count at all...... Many of the rural people could just stop voting and accept what the big metro areas decide.

    We still need the EC.......
     
  8. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    To do what you want would eliminate the very purpose of the EC.
     
  9. Sarg
    Offline

    Sarg Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    That's not the reason the EC was created. The EC was created for the same reason the Senate was - to prevent "one person, one vote" from being the only consideration. It is precisely to force a diversity of approachedsin the presidential campaign. I assure you the campaigns aren't running the same style in Iowa, Florida and Ohio this cycle.
     
  10. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    in other words, you want to win and don't care if more people think your guy is nuts.

    i've always wondered why someone in idaho should have a greater proportionate effect on an election than me.
     

Share This Page