Two states currently split their electoral votes according to this article.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/maine.voting.ap/index.html

Maine and Nebraska each apportion their electoral votes, allowing some to go to each candidate. Colorado is voting on whether to adopt a similair system. I think some such system should be adopted nationwide. I realize it would take a constitutional amendment to institute it nationally, but I think it would solve at least one major problem. It would eliminate the swing state phenomenon. It would be neccessary to campaign and run commercials in all states, and not ignore those in one camp or the other.

I am curious what others think of this idea.

I like it too. I think the vote is watered down badly, the way it is now. For instance, if you are one of the millions of voters in CA, TX or NY, the chance of your vote actually making a difference is abysmal. We have had thread on here before arguing about whether it is even worth it to vote.

The system you are talking about would make voting meaningful again. I think that is badly needed.

Even better than that, don't split the votes in the electoral college, just eliminate the electoral college. That way candidates would campaign in every state. Every state would be a battleground.

This idea is being pushed in Colorado by democrats who think Senator Kerry will lose a close election there, and would take 4 electoral votes instead of none. If they change the electoral system, it has to be done in all states at the same time (though I would accept just doing it in NY and California)

Actually there are three states that already have a split electorial vote. My first choice would be to eliminate it altogether. Second choice is to split it in all states. The electorial college makes your individual vote pretty damn useless unless you are with the majority in your state.

I agree that it's a good idea. Whether it will actually happen would depend on whether the party currently in control thinks they will do better with or without the system.

It would be great for democrats if it was eliminated altogether. Then states like Massachusetts and California would have even more pull than they have now.

The republicans will never let it happen. Dems have historically gotten the popular vote in close elections. The rebublicans have to rely on the electorial college to win or in the case of dubbya, an appointment by the supreme court. They don't represent the majority of the people and they know it.

The republicans will never let it happen. Dems have historically gotten the popular vote in close elections. The rebublicans have to rely on the electorial college to win or in the case of dubbya, an appointment by the supreme court. They don't represent the majority of the people and they know it.

Let me get this straight. Are you trying to say that when a republican president wins the election he usually loses the popular vote?

Then states like Massachusetts and California would have even more pull than they have now.

How do you figure that?

Then states like Massachusetts and California would have even more pull than they have now.

If they have more people, why shouldn't they have more pull? Shouldn't the majority have more pull than the minority?

If I live in an apartment complex with 100 other people in it that takes up one city block, and a single family lives on a large piece of land that takes up one city block, why should that family's votes hold more wieght on a per person basis than our 100 votes?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Let me get this straight. Are you trying to say that when a republican president wins the election he usually loses the popular vote?

In the close elections they ussually loose the popular vote. Look up the history of our elections in the last 50 years. Now in elections like Reagens second term or even daddy bush's first run, it was a landslide for the republicans. There are some great web sites that map out the history of our elections and how the electorial college influenced the outcome.

Originally posted by Echo2
In the close elections they ussually loose the popular vote. Look up the history of our elections in the last 50 years. Now in elections like Reagens second term or even daddy bush's first run, it was a landslide for the republicans. There are some great web sites that map out the history of our elections and how the electorial college influenced the outcome.

Okay, just wanted to make sure I understood before I showed you how wrong you are. Bush is the ONLY president to ever win the electoral college vote and lose the pop. vote since 1888.

Bush did not win anything. He was appointed by a group of people who were mostly appointed by past presidents from his party.

Can you follow this....The executive branch of the government appointed a group of people to the judicial branch of the government. Then the judicial branch of the goverment appointed the leader of the executive branch of the goverment.

won the electorial college my ass..... as far as anyone knows....floridas electorial votes are still in limbo which would make Gore the winner of the most electorial votes.

There's one word that guarantees the republicans would never let vote-splitting happen ...

HILLARY

Dop

You people seem to have no clue what splitting the electoral college would do. Lungdog, Echo, do you realize that would mean that New York and California would not have all of their electoral colleges voting Democrat? Likewise, of course, Texas would not have all of its votes going Republican.

I honestly don't think you understand that. You people are complete idiots.

Originally posted by Echo2
Bush did not win anything. He was appointed by a group of people who were mostly appointed by past presidents from his party.

Can you follow this....The executive branch of the government appointed a group of people to the judicial branch of the government. Then the judicial branch of the goverment appointed the leader of the executive branch of the goverment.

won the electorial college my ass..... as far as anyone knows....floridas electorial votes are still in limbo which would make Gore the winner of the most electorial votes.

Nice job completely DODGING my point. Just admit that you were wrong about Republicans frequently losing the pop. vote and needing the electoral vote to win in the last 50 years. Factually false. Whether Bush won the electoral college in the last election (he did) is a seperate issue altogether.

Just keep drinking that kool aid dave.

Karankawa, illiminating the electorial college, or having all states divide the vote would help whomever is the most popular candidate of the people. Sometimes that may be dems, sometimes that may reps. In the long run I doubt it will make much of a difference other than to give Americans the feeling that their vote counts for something and that they actually have a say in government.

Here is a very informative site on the EC. I was going to copy and paste it but it is VERY long, though fascinating.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

CLICK ON - A Brief History of the Electoral College it has a section on the pros and cons.

Just keep drinking that kool aid dave.

So you won't admit you're wrong? Bush is the only president since 1888 to lose the popular vote. Its a fact.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
So you won't admit you're wrong? Bush is the only president since 1888 to lose the popular vote. Its a fact. well, thats a shame, for it to be the first time, we did it in marvelous fashion. we couldnt have picked a bigger jackass to set the new millinium precedent with. thats like screwing the ugliest girl in the whole neighborhood just once, and she gets pregnant. it had to be the dumbest man to ever serve as CIC. crazy ass perot would have been better, he's got a great excuse.

In the long run I doubt it will make much of a difference other than to give Americans the feeling that their vote counts for something and that they actually have a say in government.

That's right Echo!!!!! I'm so excited to see that you finally understood what all of this means. That was, by far, the most intelligent post that I have seen you make in weeks. Although it completely contradicts what you said earlier in this thread....you deserve praise for what appears to be logic falling in place in your head. *big round of applause*

I think it should be pointed out that splitting the electoral college would actually hurt Dems/Reps. Small parties would actually have a chance to win electoral votes, since there is more likelihood for deviance with a smaller voter base. And for that reason, I think Republicans and Democrats will come together to attempt to assassinate this idea. A crying shame, imo.

I think the third party winning electoral votes argument is the best one for vote splitting as opposed to direct election of the president. Imagine a scenario where a third party with two or three electoral votes held the chance to throw the election to either party. One of those two paries holds the majority in the house of representatives, where the election would be decided if the electoral college can't reach a decision. The other party would be forced to make major concessions on policy and or cabinet positions in order to win. It could lead to coalition government, as so many other parlimentary democracies routinely do.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveTooner
[B]So you won't admit you're wrong? Bush is the only

I believe Kennedy lost the popular vote.

I believe Kennedy lost the popular vote.

No. Even if he had, it wouldn't prove your point because Kennedy was a Democrat. You said that traditionally (last 50 years) Republicans have used the Electoral College to take office in close elections because they failed to win the popular vote. Only problem is that other than the 2000 election this hasn't happened in over 100 years.

Times the president has lost the popular vote:

2000 - George Bush
1888 - Benjamin Harrison
1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes
1824 - John Quincy Adams

dont think the democrats would be to happy about losing the 55 electoral votes they always seem to recieve in califorinia, it owuld probably fall down to 30 fr them, 25 for the republican. I dont think they think about californias massive amount of electoral votes being split up.

Read my post - I said "(last 50 years)". Last time I looked it was still 2004 so that would take us back to 1954.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I like it too. I think the vote is watered down badly, the way it is now. For instance, if you are one of the millions of voters in CA, TX or NY, the chance of your vote actually making a difference is abysmal. We have had thread on here before arguing about whether it is even worth it to vote.

The system you are talking about would make voting meaningful again. I think that is badly needed.

True. It must suck to be a conserative in California.

It ain't so great in NY either.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
True. It must suck to be a conserative in California.

I'll bet it sucks to be a conservative in Florida too...or Maine, or Hawaii...I'll bet it just pretty much sucks anywhere...:D

Read my post - I said "(last 50 years)". Last time I looked it was still 2004 so that would take us back to 1954.

I know you said last 50 years. That's why I MENTIONED it in my LAST POST. That's my whole point. Other than Bush, this as NOT HAPPENED IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS (or the last 100+ for that matter). You said that in the last 50 years Republicans have traditionally lost the popular vote and had to win the EC to take the White House. Just admit that you were dead wrong about that and quit trying to spin it. There's no shame in it. I won't make fun of you.

"I'll bet it sucks to be a conservative in Florida too...or Maine, or Hawaii...I'll bet it just pretty much sucks anywhere..."

Actually Pagan, the worst place to try to be a conservative is in a general election when you were a liberal during the primaries

Problem is that the democrats dont want the winner take all system that has worked for years. Now that the country is sick and tired of democratic BS, we are seeing the advantages of the electoral college. No we should not eliminate it because lawsuits will abound.

Problem is that the democrats dont want the winner take all system that has worked for years.

I want the winner take all system...I just want it to be based on the popular vote and not the EC so each person's vote is equal. And I'm not saying that because of the last election, I just think its more accurate.

That was not its intention. Historically when the EC was created it showed what was good for the people, it still does. The balance is that there is not much dispute for most states electoral votes because it is generally what the people in the state want, there are some who dont vote that way but that is their right to do so when they are acting like a protector, not necessarily as the representative. The EC is good just the way that it is.

The balance is that there is not much dispute for most states electoral votes because it is generally what the people in the state want

No, its only what the majority percentage wants. For instance, if 55% of a state's population votes for candidate 'A', then candidate 'A' receives 100% of that state's electoral votes.

Even better than that, don't split the votes in the electoral college, just eliminate the electoral college. I couldn't agree more. ONE MAN (OR WOMAN): ONE VOTE. Ours is the only "democracy" in the galaxy where that's not true. Let the chips fall where they may.
Sady, it will snow in Hell before the GOP allows that to happen...

The Republicans have had the majority in Congress for 11 years. The Democrats, for about 40 years before that (except for the Senate from 80 - 82). Explain how and why are the Republicans blocking this?

Originally posted by fluffernutter
I couldn't agree more. ONE MAN (OR WOMAN): ONE VOTE. Ours is the only "democracy" in the galaxy where that's not true. Let the chips fall where they may.
Sady, it will snow in Hell before the GOP allows that to happen...

its not a democracy, its a constitutional republic

That doesn't change the fact that the whole concept of electoral college is very badly out of date.

If the country goes to vote splitting or tosses the EC for popular vote, all yall's better practice saying 'President Hillary Clinton'

BWAhahahahahahahaha .......

Dop

What is the reason for this anyway?

Wouldnt that only mean, if say the split it 5 and 4, that CO would only be worth 1 electoral vote.

What good is that?

What good is that?

If a state is that evenly divided, should it be scored in the election tally as being 100% for one candidate, when in reality it's actually only 51, 52, 53% for the candidate?

It makes no sense that Democrats should get all of those CA votes when there are, literally, millions that vote Republican. And vice versa in Texas.

The real injustice of the Electoral College is that the ALLOCATION of votes favors smaller states like ND, SD, WY, ID, MT. Most are in Bush country. Their votes are over-represented. This takes 5th grade math, so follow closely:
Wyoming: (population 501,000) has 3 electoral votes.
California: (pop 35,484,000) should have, by that ratio, 212 electoral votes. But it only has 55!
A vote for president in Wyoming carries almost 4 times the weight of a vote in California.
New York should have 114, it has only 31. This hurts the Demos far more than it hurts the GOP as all of these Hooterville states are Republican. Most of the states being ripped off (exception TX) are Democratic. The Electoral College is fraud, set up by the same guys who denied the vote to EVERYONE BUT WHITE MALE LANDOWNERS. Sooner or later it will be thrown out, but don't expect to see that from the GOP any time soon. It's the only reason their guy is in the White House.

The number of votes afforded to each state is determined by the number of Senators + the number of Representatives based on the state's population in the 2000 census. Based on the Census 2000 apportionment, each member of the U.S. House of Representatives represents an average population of 646,952.

CA's pop = 33,930,798 / 646,952 = 52.3
WY's pop = 495,304 / 646,952 = 0.76

You can use fractional numbers, of course, so they round up. And that's why CA has 55 and WY has 3 electoral votes.

I realize there is a formula at work, but it's simply not fair. The additional 2 "senator" votes give these small states too much representation. And don't get me started on the 2000 census ...

Originally posted by fluffernutter
The real injustice of the Electoral College is that the ALLOCATION of votes favors smaller states like ND, SD, WY, ID, MT. Most are in Bush country.

Is your problem with the electoral college that it favors small states or that those small states favor republicans?