What if the Electoral College was Distributed Proportionally?

Blazing Saddles

Blazing Saddles

Pursuit Driver
Most of us have heard of the Electoral College and fewer of us actually understand it. Without getting into that whole segment of discussion, I was thinking this morning how our political landscape would look if the presidential race awarded the EC votes proportionally instead of winner take all. (Exceptions are Maine and Nebraska) My thoughts were if each candidate was given the "congressional district" vote for each victory, then the people's vote would be represented better. States like California wouldn't be an automatic win for the left and Texas wouldn't be a take all for the right. Millions of people in both examples basically have their vote nullified by this process. Perhaps, this can be something that the people should start voicing their opinions on.

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/11/16/what-if-electoral-votes-were-awarded-proportionally/
 
I agree fully. I believe that would also prevent Ohio and Florida from being "end all - be all" states.
 
The problem with that is that there would likely be elections where no candidate gets the required 270 electoral votes.

My suggestion is that all states revise their rules where a candidate must get a simple majority of the popular vote in order to win the state. In instances where no candidate gets a simple majority; there should be a runoff between the two top candidates to determine a clear winner. Then the states can distribute their electoral votes either proportionally or winner-take-all, same as they do now. Personally, I prefer winner-take-all, but only to a candidate with a simple majority or the popular vote. This will make the less populous states more relevant in choosing a president.
 
If political parties were more focused on the people and not their own interests, you wouldn't have to worry about the 270 level. There wouldn't be a need for three parties so the 270 level wouldn't usually come into play but it's happened before with the old system so we could still resolve issues the same way.
 
Guard Dad said:
The problem with that is that there would likely be elections where no candidate gets the required 270 electoral votes.

My suggestion is that all states revise their rules where a candidate must get a simple majority of the popular vote in order to win the state. In instances where no candidate gets a simple majority; there should be a runoff between the two top candidates to determine a clear winner. Then the states can distribute their electoral votes either proportionally or winner-take-all, same as they do now. Personally, I prefer winner-take-all, but only to a candidate with a simple majority or the popular vote. This will make the less populous states more relevant in choosing a president.
Click to expand...
If you change it to electoral votes are received proportionately by the amount of votes they receive in a state; y0u can also at the same time change it to eliminate the need to have 270 electoral votes and go with who has the most wins. Runoff elections are expensive not just to the candidates, but the taxpayers as well.
 
Boss 302 said:
If you change it to electoral votes are received proportionately by the amount of votes they receive in a state; y0u can also at the same time change it to eliminate the need to have 270 electoral votes and go with who has the most wins. Runoff elections are expensive not just to the candidates, but the taxpayers as well.
Click to expand...
If we would have had runoffs between the top two GOP candidates in every state, who would be the likely nominee right now?
 
Boss 302 said:
If Cruz was leading Trump right now, would you support runoffs in presidential primaries?
Click to expand...
Given the same scenario, yes.

Trump is leading because the rest of the vote was watered down among too many candidates. The numbers I've seen show that he would not have done nearly as well had there only been the usual 3 or so candidates once the primaries start.
 
Guard Dad said:
Given the same scenario, yes.

Trump is leading because the rest of the vote was watered down among too many candidates. The numbers I've seen show that he would not have done nearly as well had there only been the usual 3 or so candidates once the primaries start.
Click to expand...
Prior to this year, the largest amount of GOP candidates seeking the party's nomination was 15 in 1948. Three of them withdrew during primaries, but the other 8 did not withdraw until the convention. Dewey was nominated on the third ballot. Harold Stassen won the most states (4) during that primary and Dewey had won 2.

I agree with you on runoffs to a point. My biggest concerns are the costs to taxpayers for runoff elections and it will shorten the primary season. Some may see the latter as a good thing, but with a shorter primary season, we end up with less time to learn more about the candidates and what they stand for. Perhaps the solution would be to hold all the primaries in each state on the same day for both parties.
 
Boss 302 said:
Prior to this year, the largest amount of GOP candidates seeking the party's nomination was 15 in 1948. Three of them withdrew during primaries, but the other 8 did not withdraw until the convention. Dewey was nominated on the third ballot. Harold Stassen won the most states (4) during that primary and Dewey had won 2.

I agree with you on runoffs to a point. My biggest concerns are the costs to taxpayers for runoff elections and it will shorten the primary season. Some may see the latter as a good thing, but with a shorter primary season, we end up with less time to learn more about the candidates and what they stand for. Perhaps the solution would be to hold all the primaries in each state on the same day for both parties.
Click to expand...
Assuming Trump gets the nomination; the GOP will have a candidate who did NOT get a majority vote in many states. I don't think that's a good thing.
 
Congressional district are gerrymandered. The election would turn out much the same every year just like the House does throuout all but a few districts. If you want to take power away from the states, just make it popular vote.
 
lotstodo said:
Congressional district are gerrymandered. The election would turn out much the same every year just like the House does throuout all but a few districts. If you want to take power away from the states, just make it popular vote.
Click to expand...
That's about what I conclude. My main issue is that it would cause the candidates to at least focus on more parts of the country and it's voters who feel their vote doesn't matter. With that said, most of the time, you're going to have a very similar result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top