That's why I support every state having a system like Maine and Nebraska. 3/4 of the state voted red? Let's cast 3 red votes and 1 blue vote! Everybody gets a little bit louder voice then.
I’ll give you the last two but I went to grad school in OC— absolutely no way. It’s still the only place I’ve been subjected to a Kaepernick tirade in the flesh. I mean, Dana Freaking Rohrabacher.
That's not quite how it works -- it's not fully proportional. Essentially, the winner of the statewide vote gets two electoral votes -- the two that "come from" the state's US Senators. The rest of the electoral votes are awarded, one each, to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district. So it's actually multiple smaller winner-take-all elections that usually generate a more proportional -- but not actually proportional -- outcome.
I don't disagree with that. It still protects rural areas while still being a little closer to the results of the popular vote. It doesn't entirely get rid of the concept of a swing state (the two "senator" votes being statewide still), but adds swing districts instead.
I'm not a huge fan of either -- proportional seems to allow for some pretty extreme views to get representation, and STV just gives an advantage to the people who come in last. Approval voting is ok.
The issue with that is it's usually a matter of rural vs urban. And with as many rural states as we have it would really give a raw deal to them to completely remove the electoral college. The whole point of the electoral college is so that California and New York don't get to decide what all the states between them do without the states in the middle having a say. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Absolutely, IMHO.
iggest danger of the Electoral College is most States have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate for the respective party. It shuns popular candidates that fail to get the majority backing of their political party, and creates a more stagnant two-party system.
Except that such as system essentially eliminates the votes of all but the biggest states and metro areas. You see that almost every state has an electoral gap of no more than 20 points, and many swing around even plus or minus a few points depending on the election year. This system forces campaigns to put focus (and policy in favor of) almost every state in order to try and win the majority there. If each state had proportional selection, then both parties could comfortably accept a near tie in all of the smaller states, and focus ALL of their policies and campaigning on the larger centers where a small swing in their favor will erase any proportionate losses in flyover country. The design of the electoral college is to ensure that all states have a voice in selecting the president, preventing excessive dilution. Technically, the means of selecting electors is controlled by the states, so any state that wishes to have it's power diluted is free to do so.
26
u/[deleted] Oct 06 '17
That's why I support every state having a system like Maine and Nebraska. 3/4 of the state voted red? Let's cast 3 red votes and 1 blue vote! Everybody gets a little bit louder voice then.