Should states give their Presidential Delegates Proportionally?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I really want to say that I support direct popular election (or proportional delegate votes), but the more that I think about it, I can't. I agree with Madison that it could lead to a regional faction majority imposing its will on the entire country. People in different regions tend to have different wants and needs from the government. The entire country shouldn't be beholden to the wants and needs of a few states with the largest cities. If enough people in various other regions agree with them, then they'll get their candidate.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,954
49,681
136
I really want to say that I support direct popular election (or proportional delegate votes), but the more that I think about it, I can't. I agree with Madison that it could lead to a regional faction majority imposing its will on the entire country. People in different regions tend to have different wants and needs from the government. The entire country shouldn't be beholden to the wants and needs of a few states with the largest cities. If enough people in various other regions agree with them, then they'll get their candidate.

What region would that be? The most heavily populated region of the US that shares a common identity and ideology of sorts is the South, and even that only accounts for about 25% of US population (depending on how you define it).

That's just not a realistic worry in my opinion.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
The Executive is not a representational body, I see no reason not to go with a straight popular vote. You want proportional there's the House (which needs to be fixed based on current population) and the Senate ensures that a couple large states don't dominate.
 

kohler

Member
Mar 17, 2010
55
1
71
You might not understand but the lefties want it that way, their side of the debate (left/liberal/Democrat) would hugely benefit from changes to the constitutional method of electing a president. They may hem, haw, wiggle and waggle, but it all comes down to accruing power to their side of the debate. Everything else is just pure bullshit. It's all about money and power, that's all it's ever been about and all it will ever be about.

Most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

By state (Electoral College votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

Alaska (3) -- 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters
Arkansas (6) -- 71% (R), 79% (Independents).
California (55) – 61% (R), 74% (I)
Colorado (9) -- 56% (R), 70% (I).
Connecticut (7) -- 67% (R)
Delaware (3) -- 69% (R), 76% (I)
DC (3) -- 48% (R), 74% of (I)
Florida (29) -- 68% (R)
Idaho(4) - 75% (R)
Iowa (6) -- 63% (R)
Kentucky (8) -- 71% (R), 70% (I)
Maine (4) - 70% (R)
Massachusetts (11) -- 54% (R)
Michigan (16) -- 68% (R), 73% (I)
Minnesota (10) -- 69% (R)
Montana (3)- 67% (R)
Mississippi (6) -- 75% (R)
Nebraska (5) -- 70% (R)
Nevada (5) -- 66% (R)
New Hampshire (4) -- 57% (R), 69% (I)
New Mexico (5) -- 64% (R), 68% (I)
New York (29) - 66% (R), 78% Independence, 50% Conservative
North Carolina (15) -- 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), 80% (I)
Ohio (18) -- 65% (R)
Oklahoma (7) -- 75% (R)
Oregon (7) -- 70% (R), 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20) -- 68% (R), 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4) -- 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), 78% (I),
South Carolina (8) -- 64% (R)
South Dakota (3) -- 67% (R)
Tennessee (11) -- 73% (R)
Utah (6) -- 66% (R)
Vermont (3) -- 61% (R)
Virginia (13) -- 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 54% conservative (R)
Washington (12) -- 65% (R)
West Virginia (5) -- 75% (R)
Wisconsin (10) -- 63% (R), 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) –66% (R), 72% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
So nice of you to show up every year to post a series of articles about an obviously favorite subject. I take it you strongly favor getting rid of the electoral college? I don't.
 

kohler

Member
Mar 17, 2010
55
1
71
So nice of you to show up every year to post a series of articles about an obviously favorite subject. I take it you strongly favor getting rid of the electoral college? I don't.

The National Popular Vote bill PRESERVES the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. That majority of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Kohler is a single issue poster (3 threads total, each having to do with the popular vote) and does nothing but spam material from various articles and websites, without linking or attributing any of it. He's spamming the forum, not participating in discussion.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,550
2,763
136
The thread seems to have been derailed from "Is proportional better than winner-take-all" to "is the electoral college better than a national popular vote" under the premise that a proportional distribution is equivalent to a national popular vote. This is incorrect in that electoral college delegate counts mirror the number of Representatives and Senators in Congress. A national popular vote, in essence, removes the Senator count from the equation.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,954
49,681
136
The thread seems to have been derailed from "Is proportional better than winner-take-all" to "is the electoral college better than a national popular vote" under the premise that a proportional distribution is equivalent to a national popular vote. This is incorrect in that electoral college delegate counts mirror the number of Representatives and Senators in Congress. A national popular vote, in essence, removes the Senator count from the equation.

I think it was from the basic universal agreement that proportional representation couldn't be implemented/was bad. You would need all states to implement it concurrently, and that's not going to happen.

So now we're talking about other ways to alter or eliminate the electoral college.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
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.

Sure, but it requires fewer individual votes to switch electoral votes in the less populated states. It would be interesting to run the numbers and see vote differences in the last few elections to see who might really benefit.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
What region would that be? The most heavily populated region of the US that shares a common identity and ideology of sorts is the South, and even that only accounts for about 25% of US population (depending on how you define it).

That's just not a realistic worry in my opinion.

McCain/Obama vote totals:

South Carolina: 55%/45%
Georgia: 52%/48%
Alabama: 60:/40%
Mississippi: 56%/44%

We're pretty much a diverse nation all over.
 
Last edited:

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Considering that in the entire history of Presidential voting, the popular vote and the electoral college vote produced different winners only once, seems like a good bet that we can keep the voting system the way it is.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I'm confused, your info supports my point.

I'm saying that even the south does not share "a common identity and ideology"

They're just tipped slightly enough to almost always go Republican.

It's like my state of Illinois, 90% of the land area swings Republican. In my county, for the longest time Democrats didn't even bother placing candidates in local elections. However, Chicago votes Democrat, and as such the state is a near guarantee for Democrats to win in the Presidential election. Republicans don't even make much attempt at all campaigning in Illinois. But that doesn't mean the people of Illinois share a common identity and ideology because they nearly always go Democrat.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,954
49,681
136
Considering that in the entire history of Presidential voting, the popular vote and the electoral college vote produced different winners only once, seems like a good bet that we can keep the voting system the way it is.

The reason why we should shift away from the electoral college has little to do with how the two votes line up. Did you read the thread?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,954
49,681
136
I'm saying that even the south does not share "a common identity and ideology"

And to prove this you showed 4 states with quite similar vote totals? If anything your info was absolutely evidence of a common identity and ideology shared between states. It did not mean 'everyone votes for the same guy' in our system necessarily, it meant that they have a bunch in common.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,674
4,148
136
Considering that in the entire history of Presidential voting, the popular vote and the electoral college vote produced different winners only once, seems like a good bet that we can keep the voting system the way it is.

You are missing the point were more people would turn out to vote in a popular vote. As stated many many many times in various threads. The current system keeps people from voting depending where they live a lot of the time. A lot of D's in KS dont vote because for example because their votes dont matter under the current system. Sure KS is a heavy republican state but that doesnt mean Dems dont live in it. And vica versa for any other state that leans heavily one way or the other.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,674
4,148
136
I'm saying that even the south does not share "a common identity and ideology"

They're just tipped slightly enough to almost always go Republican.

It's like my state of Illinois, 90% of the land area swings Republican. In my county, for the longest time Democrats didn't even bother placing candidates in local elections. However, Chicago votes Democrat, and as such the state is a near guarantee for Democrats to win in the Presidential election. Republicans don't even make much attempt at all campaigning in Illinois. But that doesn't mean the people of Illinois share a common identity and ideology because they nearly always go Democrat.

Exactly why EC sucks. Those people who live sin 90% of IL have no voice because of one large city. At least with popular vote they would add to the country total.
 

kohler

Member
Mar 17, 2010
55
1
71
Considering that in the entire history of Presidential voting, the popular vote and the electoral college vote produced different winners only once, seems like a good bet that we can keep the voting system the way it is.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

Within the last couple of days, I have seen predictions of how most of the current potential GOP presidential candidates and President Obama this year could win the Electoral College while not winning the national popular vote.
 

kohler

Member
Mar 17, 2010
55
1
71
You are missing the point were more people would turn out to vote in a popular vote. As stated many many many times in various threads. The current system keeps people from voting depending where they live a lot of the time. A lot of D's in KS dont vote because for example because their votes dont matter under the current system. Sure KS is a heavy republican state but that doesnt mean Dems dont live in it. And vica versa for any other state that leans heavily one way or the other.

In 2008, voter turnout in the 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
If presidential campaigns did not ignore 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in the two-thirds of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Who cares about the popular vote, it's irrelevant and should stay that way. What counts are the electoral votes which is why I want to see proportional electoral votes awarded in California.
 

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71
Yup, same with democrats trying to get proportional vote in southwestern red states for the illegal vote.

Please provide links of massive illegal voting in presidential elections in Southwestern states. Because if that is the case, and can be validated, then voter id laws are a valid concern. If its another one of those, I have "heard" or "everyone knows" thing, please do not distract from the focus of this thread.


On the point of proportional versus winner take all while I favor the proportional, the sheer number of challenges of the results could delay the actual winner from taking office for months if not years.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,674
4,148
136
Who cares about the popular vote, it's irrelevant and should stay that way. What counts are the electoral votes which is why I want to see proportional electoral votes awarded in California.

Can you tell me why that would be any different than straight popular voting? If CA for example has 70% pupular votes for Dems and they give the Dems 70% of the EC points. How is that any different? Basically you can get rid of the middle man (EC) since it doesnt really fill a specific roll anymore.
 

Griffinhart

Golden Member
Dec 7, 2004
1,130
1
76
Can you tell me why that would be any different than straight popular voting? If CA for example has 70% pupular votes for Dems and they give the Dems 70% of the EC points. How is that any different? Basically you can get rid of the middle man (EC) since it doesnt really fill a specific roll anymore.

The EC fills the roll it has always done. To provide a buffer between the population for elections and to provide smaller states with a greater voice in the election. That's why it was put in place, that's the roll it fills today.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |