Splitting Electoral Votes?

[sourboy]

Nebraska and Maine are two states that split their Electoral Votes. In other words, it's not winner take all - it's 1 Electoral Vote per so many votes.

Should all states incorporate this & why or why not?

 

[Rhymes]

A strong democracy should always use the most representative way of electing. In the US case, splitting the electoral votes is the best way of getting closer to that objective. I keep asking myslef why the idea hasn't been brought before.

 

[Zardnaar]

Its a good idea. Not much point voting republican in California or Democrat in Texas. Might make the candidates pay more attention than just to a few battle ground states.

 

[sourboy]

It would also encourage more voter turn out. Here in Minnesota, we haven't voted Republican since the early 70's - so many democrats don't vote, knowing it won't matter. Now if each electoral vote, or literal vote mattered - imagine the raise in voters (which tends to favor democrats).

 

[PantheraTigris2]

I'd be for it. It's more representative of what the people are wanting. And yes, more turn out. I, for example, did not register or vote today, because I live in a State where Bush cannot lose. Had it been split E.C. votes... I probably would have gone to the polls.

 

[Zamphyr]

Let the states decide.

I despise the whiners in heavy Blue/Red states who don't turn out to vote because "it doesn't matter." These are the same jerks who complain that there are only 2 parties to chose from, they're both the same, it doesn't matter. Then they sit home and do nothing to change the status quo.

Republican in CA ? Get out and vote Green. Democrat in TX ? Get out and vote Libertarian or Constitution Party. Imagine if Greens actually got 5% in CA. Not only would they not have to spend millions of their party dollars getting on the ballot, they'd qualify for federal matching funds. Imagine how much weaker the Democrats would be if the Greens actually ran TV ads in California.


Your vote matters. Its you that's making it not matter.

 

[Fetus4188]

Its a good idea. Not much point voting republican in California or Democrat in Texas. Might make the candidates pay more attention than just to a few battle ground states.

At the same time it is likely to make them completely abondon those "swing" states in favor of more urban areas (California, New England, Texas, Florida) and the rural population would be neglected.

 

[Hygro]

Right now, fetus, the majority of americans are ignored for a few swing states, and Americans in some states have proportionally of about 3 times the voting power of citizens in others. What makes them so much more qualified to choose the president? Why should only a few states decide? It's a terrible system as it stands, regardless of who wins this night's election.

 

[Xerol]

Well, this is the idea me and a few friends came up with after 2000:
Each congressional district gets one vote(for the representatives). Whomever wins the popular vote in that district gets that one vote. However, the number of electoral votes in a state = number of representatives + number of senators. So, how do you decide the other two? Whomever gets the total popular vote would get both of them. That would sort of keep the "winner take all" approach, plus in states with 3 or 4 electorals would also still be "winner take all".

 

[Fifty]

Other: They should just switch to a direct popular vote election.

The reason why: Splitting electoral votes would lead to a MUCH higher likelihood of a tie among the electors. Might as well just switch to popular vote to eliminate that possibility.

 

[ComradeDavo]

A strong democracy should always use the most representative way of electing. In the US case, splitting the electoral votes is the best way of getting closer to that objective.

I agree. I think it would be much more democratic to adopt this approach.

 

[Hugin]

A good government isn't blindly democratic but it rather balances the majority with the minority. Because of this, any election based purely on popular votes will lead to tyranny by the masses. The solution is to break up the states into, as has been mentioned, electoral districts, each with only 1 vote. The districts themselves would be determined by both geographic location and population. To give an example, New York city might get 4 electoral districts to itself while the rest of the state might get about 4-5. This would prevent only a handful of population centers forcing the rest of the state into serving its own interests. Or, if you prefer, take California, which is actually heavily Republican except along the Coast where there are a few metropolises with giant populations, which vote heavily Democrate (mob mentallity, I say). That isn't particularly fair to the majority of areas in California, the interests of only a few groups of people (though, admitedly, large groups) are being served at the expense of everyone else. The Senate is based on this same principle.

The only drawback (if it can be called a drawback) is that under such a system the Democratic party would be broken like a kit-kat bar, though at the same time it would open the doors wide for (responcible) 3rd parties.

 

[Hygro]

Or, if you prefer, take California, which is actually heavily Republican except along the Coast where there are a few metropolises with giant populations, which vote heavily Democrate (mob mentallity, I say).

Try being in touch with the realities of other people different than yourself.


P.S. Groups of people make smart choices when deciding what is best

 

[Hugin]

Try being in touch with the realities of other people different than yourself.


P.S. Groups of people make smart choices when deciding what is best

Good advice, you should listen to it.

Among other things, Monroe discusses why altrustic acts are supressed by large crowds

Dawkins discusses, from a biological point of view, why humans are basically selfish

Barnett considers how large groups of people could consent to the holocaust

An autobiographical account of life in Cambodia after large groups of people decided genocide was a good idea

The collected tales of people who engaged in mob mentality and their role in the holocaust

And, just to round things out...

How California Votes, based on district

p.s. if you want, I can provide a few more resources that discuss, in one way or another, mob mentality. But, as they say, democracy can't exist outside the shade of an apple tree.

 

[EzInKy]

I'd be for it. It's more representative of what the people are wanting. And yes, more turn out. I, for example, did not register or vote today, because I live in a State where Bush cannot lose. Had it been split E.C. votes... I probably would have gone to the polls.

Did you consider "vote trading", ie offer to vote independent in your state in exchange for an independent voting for your candidate in a swing state?

 

[Hygro]

Hugin, your two (yes its 2, you made it look like 5 but really its 2. Try clicking them yourself) book links don't contradict what I said. One is sort of unrelated (by its summary) about personal heorics, the other is about people not taking action.

There's a key difference between taking action and coming up with the best ideas. Groups of people do not excell at executive abilities, hence why the president is a one man job, not a collective body, whereas Congress consists of many people, because groups are more intellegent.

 

[Godwynn]

I say we should get rid of the Electoral College completely, but since that won't happen, let's move a step closer and allow vote splitting.

 

[Strider]

Most people don't understand that the Unites States of America is exactly what the name mentions. It is 50 strongly Unites States from America.

The Unites States government does not, and should not, represent the people. The Unites States government represents the states, and through the states, the people.

This talk of Americans being ignored, well... Get use to it. Life isn't fair, and well frankly... you don't matter.

 

[Akka]

Not only it would be much more democratic, not only it would make each vote count, but it would also get rid of the primitive two-parties system (as every candidate would have a chance to have at least some seats at the Congress).

Just be sure not to make the seats perfectly proportionnals to the votes, and keep a formula that strenghten the first party, or you risk to have a myriad of small parties that are unable to get a majority and to do anything.

 

[Hygro]

Most people don't understand that the Unites States of America is exactly what the name mentions. It is 50 strongly Unites States from America.

But you make a key distinction yourself of why we are 1 country and not 50. You said the "United States is", whereas had what you said been more relevent and realistic, it should have been the "United States are". The switch in semantics came about around the time America went to war with itself.