Should states give their Presidential Delegates Proportionally?

[cybrsage]

Do you all think states should be winner takes all or proportional, wrt the Electoral College Delegates?

I am interested in not only the choice, but WHY you choose the choice you choose.

For me, I think the delegates should be given proportionally, based on percentage of vote. I think this more accurately represents the will of the people.

 

[cubby1223]

I have to go with "Winner takes all".

Why?

Look at the 2000 election. If the states handed out delegates in proportions, a very close election means every state must suffer through the recall process, not just Florida in the 2000 situation.

If you want to accurately represent the will of the people, why not go all the way and abolish the electoral college and go with a direct vote?

 

[Craig234]

The issue to understand is that winner takes all makes the state more important to the candidates, getting the candidates to offer more to the state to get votes.

So it might be better for voters and the country to do proportional, but it's not in states' interest.

 

[cybrsage]

The issue to understand is that winner takes all makes the state more important to the candidates, getting the candidates to offer more to the state to get votes.

So it might be better for voters and the country to do proportional, but it's not in states' interest.

Good point.

 

[cubby1223]

The issue to understand is that winner takes all makes the state more important to the candidates, getting the candidates to offer more to the state to get votes.

So it might be better for voters and the country to do proportional, but it's not in states' interest.

There are pros and cons to every option.

I live in Illinois. Illinois will always vote Democrat except in a total Republican blow-out. As a con, my vote is always worthless. But as the pro, I do not have to suffer through the full force of B.S. campaign ads on tv & radio.

 

[davmat787]

Never really thought on this issue, so I think it would be interesting to review the past 4 or so elections, and see what would change if the delegates were applied with proportionality as the OP describes.

For example, would it give the minority a bit more of a voice? eastern WA usually votes more to the R side, but due to the population disparity western WA always gets their candidate.

 

[monovillage]

iirc Nebraska is the only State that gives electoral votes proportionally, with some minor district twists. As a Republican in California of course i 'd like to see electoral votes done by proportion or district. I doubt if the Democrats will ever allow it to happen since it would dilute their power in "safe" states.

 

[fskimospy]

It should be proportional, but only if it applies to all states that way. There have been attempts in recent years by republicans to do that, but only in blue states, which is just a power grab.

Better yet, I hope to see more states pass the national popular vote legislation, effectively eliminating the electoral college.

 

[Craig234]

It should be proportional, but only if it applies to all states that way. There have been attempts in recent years by republicans to do that, but only in blue states, which is just a power grab.

Exactly; the constitution doesn't allow requiring all states to do it without an amendment, and it's basically not possible to get all states to agree to it.

This is an issue I have with Common Cause, who is pushing state by state for these things - Republicans support them only in blue states, reducing Democrats' power.

A mish mash of states on this is a big problem.

 

[zsdersw]

I think the delegates should be given proportionally, based on percentage of vote. I think this more accurately represents the will of the people.

This.

 

[QuantumPion]

There have been attempts in recent years by republicans to do that, but only in blue states, which is just a power grab.

Yup, same with democrats trying to get proportional vote in southwestern red states for the illegal vote.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think it should be left up to the States. If I were a state legislator, I'd vote to end popular voting in my state.

However, I think the best way to award them proportionally is to do it by congressional district and then the State legislatures could choose the remaining two electors, whoever wins the Statewide popular vote could choose the electors, or whoever wins a majority of the electoral districts in each state could get the last two.

I will admit, however, that the U.S. Republic may have gotten off to a better start if the people directly elected the President (JQ Adams, Lincoln, Hayes, and Ben Harrison wouldn't have ever become President), but I'm not so sure about today. The Articles of Confederation was also popular while the Federal Constitution was opposed by the majority of voters in the union in 1788. It's a shame that the electorate isn't as intelligent or as hardworking today as in 1788.

 

[fskimospy]

Yup, same with democrats trying to get proportional vote in southwestern red states for the illegal vote.

That sentence doesn't make much sense, like I seriously don't know what you're trying to say about illegal immigrants.

I am unaware of Democrats pushing a proportional vote in southwestern red states, but were they to do so it would be a power grab there as well, yes. Like I said though, far better to do away with the electoral college completely through the national popular vote compact.

 

[Griffinhart]

Do you all think states should be winner takes all or proportional, wrt the Electoral College Delegates?

I am interested in not only the choice, but WHY you choose the choice you choose.

For me, I think the delegates should be given proportionally, based on percentage of vote. I think this more accurately represents the will of the people.

It is up to each state how they wish to distribute their delegate's votes. Maine and Nebraska do not use a winner take all sytem for electoral votes.

Every state can have a state constitutional convention and make the change for their own state.

 

[Griffinhart]

iirc Nebraska is the only State that gives electoral votes proportionally, with some minor district twists. As a Republican in California of course i 'd like to see electoral votes done by proportion or district. I doubt if the Democrats will ever allow it to happen since it would dilute their power in "safe" states.

Maine does as well. Both States use the congressional district method. But I agree that Democrats wouldn't go for it, especially in the more populated states.

 

[Rainsford]

It is up to each state how they wish to distribute their delegate's votes. Maine and Nebraska do not use a winner take all sytem for electoral votes.

I feel like that's actually the worst system from a practical point of view, something that would be more apparent if more (or larger) states did it. The problem with each state choosing is that depending on the political leaning of the states, it could create a massive imbalance towards either Democrats or Republicans.

Think about the case where many red states switched to proportional systems while few blue states did. Democrats could get electoral votes from the blue minority in red states, while Republicans could not get electoral votes from red voters in blue states. Even if just California or Texas went to a proportional system, it would be a massive blow to Democrats or Republicans respectively.

 

[Rainsford]

Maine does as well. Both States use the congressional district method. But I agree that Democrats wouldn't go for it, especially in the more populated states.

Why would Democrats be more opposed to this than Republicans? Both parties have "safe" states where their power would be diluted by proportional systems.

 

[Rainsford]

Overall I like the idea of a proportional system, although only if applied nationally for fairness reasons. It means states are no longer "safe" for either side, and both parties would focus more on states beyond the battleground ones that have a disproportionate voice in the current system.

The downside is that it might mean less of a voice for smaller states. A Democrat could ignore smaller states and make up the electoral votes by winning more of California, and a Republican could do the same with Texas. On the other hand, smaller states would still have fewer voters per electoral vote, so getting those votes may be easier enough to attract candidates to the small states.

 

[Griffinhart]

I feel like that's actually the worst system from a practical point of view, something that would be more apparent if more (or larger) states did it. The problem with each state choosing is that depending on the political leaning of the states, it could create a massive imbalance towards either Democrats or Republicans.

Think about the case where many red states switched to proportional systems while few blue states did. Democrats could get electoral votes from the blue minority in red states, while Republicans could not get electoral votes from red voters in blue states. Even if just California or Texas went to a proportional system, it would be a massive blow to Democrats or Republicans respectively.

Worse yet, have you seen the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

It's an agreement between several (blue) states that once the compact has reached enough votes to win (270) that all of those states electoral votes will automatically go to the winner of the national popular vote? It's a scheme to circumvent the Electoral college. It would be a system where All of CA's Electoral College votes could go to a republican. Currently, the following states have passed laws signing on to the pact.

Maryland
New Jersey
Illinois
Hawaii
Washington
Massachusetts
District of Columbia
Vermont
California

 

[fskimospy]

Worse yet, have you seen the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

It's an agreement between several (blue) states that once the compact has reached enough votes to win (270) that all of those states electoral votes will automatically go to the winner of the national popular vote? It's a scheme to circumvent the Electoral college. It would be a system where All of CA's Electoral College votes could go to a republican. Currently, the following states have passed laws signing on to the pact.

Maryland
New Jersey
Illinois
Hawaii
Washington
Massachusetts
District of Columbia
Vermont
California

Why is that worse? I strongly support the elimination of the electoral college in this manner. Every year a handful of states are given wildly disproportionate influence over national policy for the sole reason that they happen to be closely split in presidential voting. It's insane, and eliminating the electoral college would solve this overnight.

Why should Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania get so much more influence over presidential politics than New York, Texas, and California?

EDIT: To be clear, yes a state's electoral votes could go to someone the state didn't support, but the person who wins the popular vote almost always wins the electoral vote. (sorry, Al Gore!) Such a risk is a small price to pay for the shift in priorities that would give these states actual relevance.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I would expect a proportional system to result in anything outside major population centers being ignored. Candidates would prefer to spend their resources where it will do them the largest benefit. With a winner take all, campaigning to rural and suburban areas makes sense since they can swing the entire state.

In a proportional system, any day spent campaigning outside the cities is a day reaching fewer voters, and fewer electoral votes. It would always be better to go to a different city then to campaign outside the cities.

 

[Griffinhart]

Why would Democrats be more opposed to this than Republicans? Both parties have "safe" states where their power would be diluted by proportional systems.

Dems generally have the popular votes from the more populous states. Their "safe states" are fewer in number, half of the votes in CA to the GOP would hurt more than gaining half the votes in Texas. I think the GOP would gain an advantage over-all, though not a major one.

One thing that both parties would probably dislike as well is, they would need to spend far more campaign dollars in states that they traditionally haven't had to.

 

[fskimospy]

I would expect a proportional system to result in anything outside major population centers being ignored. Candidates would prefer to spend their resources where it will do them the largest benefit. With a winner take all, campaigning to rural and suburban areas makes sense since they can swing the entire state.

In a proportional system, any day spent campaigning outside the cities is a day reaching fewer voters, and fewer electoral votes. It would always be better to go to a different city then to campaign outside the cities.

You know that low population areas are already granted large additional legislative representation as compared to urban ones, right? Why should this be extended further to presidential elections?

Furthermore, why is having a system where our candidates only need to address the issues in a handful of states superior to one where they would campaign in higher density areas?

 

[Griffinhart]

Why is that worse? I strongly support the elimination of the electoral college in this manner. Every year a handful of states are given wildly disproportionate influence over national policy for the sole reason that they happen to be closely split in presidential voting. It's insane, and eliminating the electoral college would solve this overnight.

Why should Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania get so much more influence over presidential politics than New York, Texas, and California?

EDIT: To be clear, yes a state's electoral votes could go to someone the state didn't support, but the person who wins the popular vote almost always wins the electoral vote. (sorry, Al Gore!) Such a risk is a small price to pay for the shift in priorities that would give these states actual relevance.

I strongly feel that direct popular vote elections would mean the end of any chance of representation in the White House by smaller states. Candidates can simply canvas the large cities, and ignore the concerns of middle america and small states. What is a great policy for LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami, is not generally a great policy for rural america.

When the Electoral College was created this concept was understood by the drafters. It is a system designed to protect the rights of the smaller states. The need to do this hasn't gone away.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I don't like the disproportionate influence that the winner takes all system gives to swing states so yes we should move to a more direct method.