Regarding the Electoral College Votes: Should it be proportional in all 50 states?

[bicentennial_baby]

Poll question: Regarding the Electoral College Votes: Should it be proportional in all 50 states?

As far as I know, only Maine and Nebraska have proportional voting in the Electoral College. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be abolished entirely...What do you think?

[niyad]

1. other. it should be abolished entirely.

[Taverner]

6. Aye

It should be popular vote

And the "no religious test" clause should be heeded.

[elocs]

7. Had Kerry won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote in 2004,

the Republicans would have gone completely nuts (payback for 2000 would have been a bitch, though) and we would be well on our way to having a Constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college.

[Lebam in LA]

14. Ditto

Get rid of it. Count every vote and the one with most votes, WINS

[notesdev]

2. Each state

has the right to make that decision for itself.

[Hydra]

3. If we have to have it

Then it should be proportional.

I'm in favor of doing away with it- my vote is worthless in my state. Nothing in the heavens or hell will ever make it a blue state.

[Richardo]

4. Whichever it is, it should be the same in all states.

It's a federal election.

[aquart]

12. Which is why it was dealt with in the constitution and not your state legislature.

[BalancedGoat]

5. Only if all states switch over at the same time.

I remember republicans in California pushing for this so as to kill our chances of ever electing a democratic president.

[bicentennial_baby]

8. Yeah, Sniffa was just talking about that...I agree

:)

[aquart]

10. And how did they plan to amend the federal constitution?

[BalancedGoat]

18. ?

I'm not familier with a clause that mandates winner takes all.

[Firespirit]

15. I agree with this

I support keeping the electoral vote and keeping the system for determining how many votes a state gets -- unpopular position on DU, I know. If we abolished it, then candidates would not ever campaign in small states, so I'm in favor of giving small states a handicap by means of the EV. However, there is no incentive to GOTV in deep red states unless there is a competitive down-ballot race. The winner-take-all system sucks if you live in a partisan state. For the 50-state strategy, I think the best system is an electoral vote system with proportional allocation of a state's votes.

[aquart]

9. No, dear. The whole point was not to be.

Does no one study history? This is a federation of states. The electoral college prevents the large populous states riding roughshod over the less-populated states.

And the point is MOOT. It can only be changed by constitutional amendment and you won't get one.

So can we get on to issues we can affect?

[bicentennial_baby]

13. Can I ask a question?

And don't call me "dear", please.

[jody]

16. The electoral college protects states rights by giving each state 2 votes for each senator plus one

for each congressperson.

I see nothing wrong with the procedures used by ME/NE, selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and selecting the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote.

[Bluebear]

17. 'Does no one study history?' - - No, we're all uneducated dolts.

[jody]

11. I oppose the winner-takes-all method used by 48 states. ME/NE have it right. n/t

[MiniMe]

19. Only if it is in all states. California tried it to add republican EC votes

It failed as it should have. Unless you are doing states like Texas, Florida, etc the same way it gives the party who usually loses the state a distinct advantage. In California's case, a republican advantage. In Texas's case, it would give a dem advantage. So I would say that its fine if it is in all states, but otherwise I don't think it is good.

[jody]

21. I agree re Repug activities in CA but IMO it's more democratic to use ME/NE procedure. n/t

[MiniMe]

22. Agreed, but all states would have to switch at the same time

which makes it unlikely that it would happen

[Spike89]

20. It has a valid reason

Smaller, less populated states need protection from the larger states. It's true that little states wouldn't get visits during campaigns, but that is really a trivial concern in comparison to some of the other dangers. That little bit of power does help restrain politicians from raiding the small states (alienating a small voting block) to serve a big state. It may not have as much relevance as it once did on the east coast, but in the west this is still a huge concern. States should be free to dilute their own importance by going proportional, but they shouldn't be forced to.

[rocktivity]

23. Either make it porportional for all 50 states or get rid of it altogether

It makes as much sense of some states recognizing gay marriage and not others.

:headbang:
rocknation