August 17, 2004

• I think this is a good idea. I've never liked the winner-take-all system. I'm not clear how a state becomes less important to a candidate if they adopt proportional distribution. Wouldn't you, say, want those votes? And yes, it does need serious overhaul, but it's only one facet of US elections that need revamping.
• what MCT said. Boy MCT you take all the fun out of posting . . .
• From a campaigning standpoint, the states become less powerful because they are no longer huge blocks of voting power. Swing states no longer matter as much, because you can't grab the entire state's worth of electoral college votes just by concentrating your campaigns in that state. From a post-election standpoint, I'm not sure. My understanding of Polisci is too weak to make a coherent argument. However, as someone who lives in a state whose electoral votes are predominantly different from my own point of view, I welcome the change. It'd be nice to have my vote count for something other than just part of the statistics of total votes.
• No CRAP this needs to happen. I've always felt really strongly about this, and I don't see how this makes any state any stronger when 30 of the 50 get almost no campaigning done in them because they're already 'locked up'. How is that beneficial to the people at all? And just think of how many more people (liberals in Mississippi, conservatives in Vermont) would vote if they knew that their vote would actually make a difference instead of being steamrolled by the vast opposing majority...
• It should already be this way. Those electorial votes have people attached to them already. The electorial vote should be coming from the representitive, not the state. The representattive is supposed to decide whether to go along with the popular vote, or to override it in the best interest of the voters.
• Yes, absolutely, to all points. Proportional allocation of votes will open the door to third and fourth parties getting recognition, which means more ideas will go into the political stew.
• "It begs the question on which is more important
• Sorry, pete, but I have very little to do during the day, so I hover over these damn threads. *hands internet to pete, goes looking for beer* btw, did you get my mail yesterday?
• And just think of how many more people (liberals in Mississippi, conservatives in Vermont) would vote if they knew that their vote would actually make a difference instead of being steamrolled by the vast opposing majority... Amen. Elections are suppose represent the will of the entire people (HA! HA! HA!). The winner in 2000 got less votes and the White House. I'm sure conservatives would find it equally hard to stomach if Kerry gets in the same way (which is very possible). Also another possiblity. Bush and Kerry could tie for electoral votes. Does anyone want to have Congress elect the President?
• I worked to get proportional allocation to the Old Dominion (that's Virginia to you), but then the state legislature's majority shifted and they were happy their party won the state every presidential election. *grumbles. Flings poo.
• If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes. While that is technically correct, both Maine and Nebraska are already doing something similar. The 2 electoral votes the states receive for their senators are given to the winner of the statewide popular vote. However, the remaining electoral votes are allocated by each congressional district within the state and the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in each district wins that electoral vote from the state. More explanation here Admittedly, the proposal in Colorado comes much closer to what I personally would like to see, but it is nice to see other states making attempts at reform(even if it is only two other states.)
• An idea whose time has definitely come. The EC system right now disenfranchises voters, pure and simple. Every vote counts? Only if you're in a swing state--and even then only if your side comes out on top. For example, I and thousands of my fellow Arkansas voted for Gore in the 2000 election, yet Bush walked away with 100% of the Arkansas electoral votes. So basically, I'd have done just as well to sit on my thumbs at home as go out and vote. My vote for president DID NOT COUNT. And to be fair, same with all the 'publicans in New York and California. Not only that, but as people have probably already pointed out, the EC gives inordinate importance to "swing" states, leading the campaigners to ignore those parts of the country they figure they have "locked up." Now I'm all for the swing state concerns getting heard and addressed, but what about the rest of the country? Shouldn't the winner be the one who appeals to voters' concerns and needs THROUGHOUT the country, not just in Florida and Ohio? Personally I'd like to see the EC abolished entirely. However, failing that, proportional distribution would at least be a step in the right direction.
• And a hooker in every garage.
• That's what I mean about addressing the concerns of the electorate, mct. ;)
• Oh, and I had meant to make a point about how the EC reinforces the idea that it's not important whether you vote or not, but it's too late now. I'm surprised this hasn't been more of an issue. Sometimes I wonder if the Two Major Parties would really LIKE to see a 100% voter turnout--if they don't think it's better just to keep the 25% of voters on their side happy and go for the few swingers who might stumble into a booth, rather than getting everyone out there with god knows what concerns informing their choices. After all, better to fight the beast you know than release the tempest from the teakettle... Er, or something.
• It seems that Amendment 36 was started by a foreigner. And no, not this foreigner.
• It seems like both the Democrats and the Republicans stand to lose in a purportional system, and the voters stand to win. This is the most likely reason a serious electoral reform hasn't happened in the USA yet (or Canada where the Liberals like first-past-the-post since it means they get to win most of the time). Frankly I'm surprised. I hadn't heard anything about this.
• I like the idea immensely. It's at least a good step in the right direction to make everyone's vote count for something other than lost time voting. I say that as someone living in a "red" state who doesn't tend to vote "red". Every time I vote for president, I wonder why I am going through the hassle, as the Republican candidate is sure to get more than enough of the percentage to take all the electoral votes anyway. Doesn't stop me from voting, but I know some folks who don't bother anymore for this very reason. As to lessening the clout of the state, I'd think it would make all the states suddenly very important to all the candidates, if all the states went to this system (which they should). Suddenly, instead of being able to sit back and ignore states that they have historically won, parties and candidates would have to work a little harder to get as many votes as they could.
• Breaking news: 1/50th of the USA joins the 20th freakin' century. Of course, the UK is still stuck some time in the early 1800s...
• One other consequence would be that candidates would focus much more on the urban areas and ignore the rural areas. And I can understand why some people might not like that, I guess. Although frankly, the rural areas already get their say. 20 farmers in Iowa got to decide who our nominee was.
• Stupid farmers. ...and I say that as a former Iowan.
• This is a discussion of some of the practical potential consequences of the proposal, as well as a discussion of the legal challenges that are inevitable should it pass.
• I wonder if anyone out there has pulled the data from the 2000 election and seen what would happen if all states had proportional electoral vote distribution. I would assume that it would be just as close, but that's only a guess.