Sam Lowry said:
contrario said:
Sam Lowry said:
JusHappy2BeHere said:
D. C. Bear said:
cinque said:
D. C. Bear said:
cinque said:
D. C. Bear said:
cinque said:
GrowlTowel said:
cinque said:
Would it be a win for representative democracy to have electors in Texas and California proportionally allocated?
No. States elect the president, not the people.
Why do people vote in presidential election if not to elect a president?
People vote for electors. It is one of a couple of ways a president may be selected. We've never had direct election of the president. A lot of democratic countries select their leader by something other than direct election by the people. The is nothing special or superior about direct election.
You think the majority of people who vote in presidential elections do so with the thought of voting for electors?
I don't know what the numbers are, but anyone with a tiny bit of education knows how the electoral college works. School House Rock anyone?
So, you believe everybody with a "tiny bit of education" votes with electors in mind more than the candidate for whom they voted? What makes you think that?
Did you know that you were actually voting for an elector?
do you think that a system that makes a vote in Wyoming worth 4x as much as a vote in California is a system worthy of the greatest Republic in the world?
Absolutely. We wouldn't be the greatest republic for long if whole regions of the country were ignored (like the Rust Belt).
That's a scare tactic. Anyone that can do basic math can see that the electoral votes in less-populated states would still be needed to win an election. In fact, a democrat would likely have a much harder time winning since they wouldn't be getting 100% of the electoral votes from the larger states, so they would be forced to campaign in the smaller states to get the votes needed. It really wouldn't be crisis some of you make it out to be, it would be a better representation of the actual votes casted, while still maintaining the EC for good reasons.
You're missing the point. The question isn't whether the votes would be needed but what they would represent. A proportional system would effectively put all votes into a national pool, thus rendering state interests invisible.
I disagree. The states' interests would still be absolutely be represented, and if anything, it would bring in interests of some of the larger states that have been "out of play" for decades. Imagine if Trump had to actually fight for votes in Texas or a majority of the Southern states. Or if Hillary actually had to fight for votes in California, NY and IL. It would be much more representitive of the country as a whole and the candidates would actually have to fight for votes, instead of accepting automatic votes and ignoring the interests of the constituents in those states. And the interesting thing is the candidates would still need to campaign in the smaller states because every single electoral vote will matter. So even states with less than 10 EC votes will still get attention because the loss of the "automatic EC votes" will need to be made up somewhere.
All in all, it would lead to a much more interested electorate, which means better voter turnout and a more engaged political system. I know countless people who don't even vote on both sides in TX because the election is already decided in TX. And I'm sure this is absolutely the case in all of the "guaranteed" states.
This change will never happen because the two parties like it the way it is and another consequence that I don't think anyone has brought up is that this would open the door for a legit 3rd party contender if they could accumulate enough proportional electoral votes. Because of that reason alone, this will never happen because the two parties would lose their power that they give back and forth every 2-6 years, depending on the cycle.
