Should we keep the winner take all electoral vote system?

[OrangeEmpire]

In California the GOP is trying to get a piece of the state's huge electoral pie by ending the winner take all presidential electoral vote system. Personally I think this would be a mistake for California to do this on their own because it would dilute their vote relative to the other states. But if ithis was being done nation wide then I might find it a little more appealing as it would give more people a say in the outcome of the election. Just as the Republicans would gain if California did this, Democrats would benefit in the South if this was done there. It's good for the minority. Not so good for the majority as it does diminish their vote a bit. So do you think we should retain a winner take all electoral system to pick a president?

How is the majority opinion offset by the minority opinion?

How much weaker and overlookable is the state of California? With the potential for a Republican candidate to receive 20 or so electoral college votes and a Democrat to receive the other 34, significant electoral colleges votes, I seriously doubt California is going to be overlooked. The fact remains California still has the potential to supply a presidential candidate with a lot of electoral college votes. As a result of this, I think states like California will attract more competition from the Republican party than it has done so in the past. With the possibility of winning between 15-22 electoral college votes, a Republican candidate will absolutely campaign more heavily in the state than previous Republican contenders. In my opinion, this does not make the state overlookable at all but renders the state more competitive.

There are right now only approximately 12-14 states which have a total electoral college vote of 12 or more. These states are typically heavily campaigned in, such as Illinois, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and North Carolina, to name some of them. Yet, a Republican candidate would be in a position to acquire more electoral college votes than most of the states enumerated above, based on the number of congressional districts Bush won in the last election, and consequently, I would think he would heavily campaign in California, as he did so in most of the states above.

So I fail to see how California is weakened or overlookable relative to other states in the Union if this proposal is adopted.

Thoughts?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well for the GOP, they should support this. As opposed to losing 55 electoral votes, they have a chance of picking up at least 19.

I don't even think a GOP candidate would have to campaign heavily there. If the GOP held districts turned their people out to vote, then the GOP candidate picks up a dozen and a half more than he typically would. It also helps defeat the logic of pulling a moderate like Giuliani, etc. to try and win the state as a whole under the current system.

 

[volinbham]

What's the history? Are all electoral votes given as a matter of law or precedent?

 

[therealUT]

Keep the winner takes all, get rid of the popular vote for the both the Presidency and for US Senators (as the system was originally set up.) State legislatures then appoint their US Senators and Presidential electorate.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Keep the winner takes all, get rid of the popular vote for the both the Presidency and for US Senators (as the system was originally set up.) State legislatures then appoint their US Senators and Presidential electorate.

Interesting. So basically give more power to the politicians is what I get out of this. Please correct me if I am wrong and trust me I want to be wrong on this one.

 

[MG1968]

Interesting. So basically give more power to the politicians is what I get out of this. Please correct me if I am wrong and trust me I want to be wrong on this one.

it was originally the plan for the Senate to represent the interest of the States (thus they were nominated by the state legislatures) and the House of Representatives to represent the "people" (by popular election). Since Senators are now elected by popular vote, the States no longer have an official voice in Washington D.C.

personally, I favor a repeal of the 17th amendment as well.

and keep winner take all. although there is movement afoot in North Carolina to award all of it's electoral votes to the nationwide winner of the popular vote despite the overall winner in NC. That would set a very dangerous precedent and effectively destroy the purpose of the electoral college.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Winner take all is the consensus already in most states.

Has anyone actually looked up the members of the college they vote for in their respective states? Here in GA it's party establishment as you can get.

 

[Godfatha]

Keep the winner takes all, get rid of the popular vote for the both the Presidency and for US Senators (as the system was originally set up.) State legislatures then appoint their US Senators and Presidential electorate.

I would feel better about this if the States actually had more power in lieu of the Federal Government.

 

[volinbham]

I would feel better about this if the States actually had more power in lieu of the Federal Government.

You clearly don't live in Alabama. I'd prefer a family of monkeys have more power than the State government of Alabama

 

[CSpindizzy]

Seriously. What state do you live in? Most states are more corrupt than even the federal level.