How to divy up state’s electoral votes?
Currently, if a candidate wins the popular vote in California, they win all 55 votes the state offers. For example, in 2004, John Kerry won the popular vote in California, thus he won 55 electoral votes. This is called the winner-take-all method. This is a big chunk of the 270 a candidate needs in order to win the Presidency.
The electoral vote is figured out by adding how many representatives they have in the House plus their two senators.
“California voters may get the opportunity to dramatically alter the 2008 presidential landscape by changing the way the state allocates its electoral votes.”
California voters could end up choosing between four methods:
(1) Winner-Take-All (current system)
(2) District vote plan: Allocates the votes by congressional district rather than statewide winner-takes-all. For example, if a candidate wins 30 of the 53 districts, then the candidate would receive 30 electoral votes. In addition to this, the candidate that wins the majority of the electoral votes would receive 2 extra (2 senators). In 2004, that would have given President Bush an additional 22 electoral votes.
(3) Popular vote plan: Gives all of the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how California voted. It would become effective only if enough states whose electoral votes added up to at least 270 – the number needed to win – joined in. In 2004, President Bush would have received the 55 electoral votes.
(4) State vote plan: Allocates electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in California once a majority of other states adopt a similar system. For example, if a candidate wins 60% of the popular vote, the candidate would receive 60% of the electoral votes (33 electoral votes).
Which system do think is best? Why? Or what alternative ideas do you have to elect our President?
I do not like the current system. Since the 1992 election, Democratic candidates have won the majority vote (1968-1988 Republican candidates won the majority vote, thus won the California electoral votes). Currently, Republican candidates assume they will lose California, so they do not really campaign to win it. Therefore, the minority vote, whether it is Republican supporters or third party supporters, do not have a voice. I wonder how many do not vote, because they know already who will win. California voters, district by district, are different enough to where I think a district vote plan would represent the different regions of the state better. The district plan would also result in candidates spending much more time here trying to sway voters to favor them.
The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated system of electing the President.
Under the current system (used everywhere except Maine and Nebraska), all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in that state. The effect of this winner-take-all rule is that candidates have no reason to campaign in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided battleground states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Two thirds of the states (including California) are ignored in presidential elections.
The proposed ballot measure would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. The presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the California’s 53 grossly gerrymandered congressional districts. Candidates would have no incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Nationwide, there are only 41 districts that are competitive in presidential elections — less than 10%.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts.
A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote relevant, regardless of where that person lives.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency. The bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. The bill has also passed the Colorado Senate, Arkansas House, and Hawaii House and Senate.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The legislation would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Hating to show my ignorance my first question is “why is there an electoral process still in place?” Who, exactly, benefits from this process? Certainly not the individual voter. I cannot see the need for a replacement policy–what would a district display of electoral votes do to give my personal vote impact and finally, why shouldn’t my vote count?
Confused and unhappy with the status quo of electoral block voting.
Heres an idea! How about we give the votes to the people! yeah, like you and me. A lot of people say that our votes dont count at all, they do in a way. The thing is we vote in the guys who vote for president. Our current system is that our representitive votes how they think we will. Thats obviously not going to please everybody so why dont we have our individual votes count toward the presidency? The whole reason why the electoral college was implemented in the first place was because way back in the day our leaders felt that although we should vote were not really capable/smart enough to make a good decision becuase most people didnt have a good education and the fact that most people didnt even know who was running for president because communication was so slow, but in this day and age i believe that we are capable of of making the right decision and putting the right people into office with the exception of Californias governor Arrrrrnold. Im just saying if we had the decision in our hands last presidential election (2004) things would’ve turned out a lot more different.
I think the current system is working. Eventhough I haven’t agreed with the pass few years. I can’t really complain about anything because I can’t vote but, when I begain to vote I am sure my thought prosses will change. I will be able to vote for the next pesident but until then I am just excepting what ever is going on.
I agree with Lori. Having electoral voting makes the individual voter’s choices seem insignificant and unimportant.
Out of our four choices I think that the district vote plan would be the most efficient in equally representing the individual voter. I think that if we were to use this system we would see a big difference in candidates’ campaigns and in the results of the elections. Unlike the current system for electoral votes, this district vote plan would give a voice to minorities- the Republicans in a Democratic California. Everyone has the right to express their viewpoint.
In order to directly elected the President, we would need to amend the U.S. Constitution.
There are two ways an amendment can be proposed.
1. The proposed Amendment must pass with two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate or
2. A Constitutional Convention can be called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. None of the 27 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been proposed this way.
If the amendment passes both the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority, it then goes to the states. Three-fourths of the states, or 38, must ratify the amendment.
First off, I think it’s a terrible idea for each individual state to have a separate system of voting in the presidential election. I’m a big believer in states’ rights, but when it comes to issues that affect the whole country, such as these elections, I think there needs to be a single, uniform policy used by all 50 states. Therefore, I’m automatically opposed to all three of these proposals, since they only affect California. However, I’m going to look at these proposals as if they were being proposed for all 50 states.
Result of popular vote in 2000 presidential election: 48.4% Gore, 47.9% Bush.
Actual result of 2000 election: 50.47% Bush, 49.53% Gore.
What the results would have been under the district vote system (if it was implemented nationwide): 53.83% Bush, 46.16% Gore.
At least in the example shown above, it doesn’t seem like the district vote system would be any more representative of the nation’s opinion than the current system. This data, plus the fact that it’s being proposed by the Republican minority, leads me to believe that this is nothing more than a Republican power ploy. I could be wrong, but still…
The other two proposed systems seem like attempts to undermine the electoral college and bring our country closer to an election decided by a popular vote. And we need the electoral college to ensure that smaller states have a fair say in how their country is run. Therefore, I support the current electoral college system.
However, no matter what system gets used, there’s still a major problem with the electoral college: gerrymandering. We need to fix the congressional districts so that this is eliminated. I, for one, support the plan that these guys have: http://www.rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html.
To make a long story short, I support the current system along with redistricting to eliminate gerrymandering.
Voting should be radicaly changed. It should be illegal for candidates to accept campaign contributions. The same way it is illegal for police officers, and judges to accept bribes. We look down on crooked cops and judges because of thier bias, so why shouldnt we do the same on a higher level. The government already puts out thousand of pointless fliers and pamphlets for the DMV, DARE, and other organizations. So my question is, why doesn’t the government provide an efficient way to get information out to the public. A website where you can view candidates based on your stance on certain issues. Also I feel that we should follow the advice of George Washington and rid ourselves of this debilitating party system. Sadly I can think of very few ways in actualy narrowing down the candidates without millions of dollars spent on campaign advertising. I digress, my point relevant to this blog, is candidates should be chosen using a district system, simply because it gives more importance to the individual person. However the problem is not how we vote, but who we vote on.
I believe that the best way to approach this political arguing, about the way votes should be counted is not by the way that its being done today. i really dislike the current system. I believe that the best way is by the District Vote Plan, which gives the candidate the actual votes that they receive by the district that they win. I think that this way is much better because I believe that its gives the voter a stronger voice as well as a stronger vote.
The district vote plan is the best because then more peoples votes would actually count. An alternative for this would be that everyone votes except the people running for president. This way evryones vote counts. There would be no electoral votes.
I think that district voteing is the best action of voteing california should take. The current system that we have, I think, takes away certain peoples voices in voteing. Lets say that it was bush vs. Kerry again people here in california who like kerry were silenced because bush got the popular vote and won all 55 electoral votes. This system, as the article above says, would have only given bush a certain amount of the electoral vote because he only won a certain percentage of the people in california.
Like many of the people who posted before me, I would have to say that the District Voting system. I say this because the current voting system gives all of the votes to the winner, no matter how close the voting was. Making the other votes insignificant. Using the District Voting system would give the electoral votes that they earned, even if they lost, regardless if they had the majority. To me, it seems to be the most logical voting plan.
I believe the best system is winner-take-all because the other systems probably have something wrong with them. An at least we know what’s wrong with current system, which is winner-take-all. And we can’t go change the system every four years, just because you or I don’t like who won the Presidency. But luckily I will be able to vote for the next Presidential election, which will give me plenty of time to get informed.
P.S. Doesn’t the winner always take all?
Just keep it simple and have it as the national popular vote. That way every voter’s voice gets heard. We are supposed to be a government, chosen for the people and chosen by the people. With the system we have now it’s a government for the people chosen by someelse, with the system we have now there’s no point to vote for the president, your vote won’t really matter, because someone else can change your vote. So then it turns the American’s job is to vote so some else change make what they feel is the more wiser choice. It turns out that our goverrnment is chosen by an “elite” group of people. Give the vote back to the people the way it’s suppossed to be when this country first set out. The national popular would be the best choice, and if the people in Government think that thier citizens are not educated enough to vote, then it should stop spending less money on war, and more to get it’s citizens educated. The Government should show a little faith in it’s citizens. The national popular vote would be the greatest system, it would make a more united America. It would also be more benifical if we just get rid of the different parties, becuase most politicains say one thing and do another, they say their republicans, but are they. We should judge people by their actions, not what party they belong to. The national popular vote, would make more for what it is suppossed to stands for
Of the “fabulous” four, i have decided to agaree wwith #4, STATE VOTE PLAN. it seems like the one that was just thrown in for kicks.It clearly has it’s ups and downs and well i know there is no messing around when it comes down to electing a president. From the content of this plan, i find it is not in motion and states have not even adopted the concept. This is a problem and my only soution would be to broad cast in all states, invade the t.v, billboards, news paper, media in general and the mail. If it has still not been defined i wil wonder what all the people in the u.s are doing. The up side to this plan though, i think is that it gives the canidate the respected vote, the people. I believe it favors the people becuse as much as a percentage the people vote, electorials basically agree.It does not give them much of the upper hand and still allow our vote to be herd. (:
I agree with the district vote plan! I agree with this method because to me it seems to be the fairest one. It has a majority rule benefit but its not drastic. The good thing about it is that you get your exact electoral votes and if you won the majority you get the extra two votes. This is good because two votes dont make a drastic change but does have an impact so the chances of being a tie is limited.
In my opinion i’d have to agree with the district plan. I think that the best plan which seems to work equally would have to be allowing the candidates to recieve their true amount of votes.By giving the correct amount of votes to either candidate then the results would be fair.
I believe that the system should be left as it is. I think it has worked fine and that it will continue to do its intended job. Yes, it may silence voters, but the majority of the state’s population doesn’t vote anyway. If people trully cared about the outcome of their vote, then I think a lot of things would be done. I think it’ll take a mass movement to change the way things are currently running. The other three plans to me seem to have many obvious faults. I think the room for error in the three plans is much greater then in the current plan. It just seems that those plans wouldn’t be as effective. If we keep it how it is, a candidate will attempt at winning the state. Plus, it makes things a lot more interesting.
I don’t know if there is anything wrong with the voting system. I think the president just sucked. When Bush first won it seemed fine because, then, he seemed like the best “candidate”. Then 9/11 happened and everyone said, “i hate George Bush”. Then they had a chance to vote for someone else, but John Kerry was no prized pig himself. I don’t think we need to change the voting system, because it’s been that way for a while, i just think we need a good enough presidential candidate to get voted by enough people to win. Hillary seems to have a lot of people on her back, so she might win, even with the way the voting process is now. So yeah, just keep it the way it is, and whoever wins is who you voted for. Because I’m sure there’s something just as “screwed up” with the other ones as there is with this one.
As for the upcoming 2008 presidential election, I think we should leave the voting system as it is. Winner take all. It is to close to upcoming election to change the entire system. Undoubtedly, no matter which system is used there will be people who will complain about the results of the 2008 presidential election.
Our voting system is not perfect, but it works. Although it does make many votes irrelevant, i think the current system reflects the overall popular vote.
In the end it all comes down to who votes. In my opinion, if you don’t vote, don’t complain.
I dont really know much in this area but I think the district vote plan is a good way to go. The people will be able to vote district by district making it somewhat able to represent the individual voter. I think it will work for our state better because it gives us more of a choice of who we want in office. but i agree with ryan-if u dont vote then dont complain.
I think the best way to pick a president would be to have a national popular vote. That way all of the people’s voices matter, but it would be too difficult for an amendment to be made to the Constitution. It would be stupid to try and change the system now, though, since we are only a year away from elections. I think the best bet we have to staying the way we are.
Heck, it’s worked in the past, hasn’t it?
I believe the current system now is working, although i strongly disagree with the results. Voting should be the same winner take all. It has worked before, they should leave things as they are for the 2008 elections, its to soon to change everything.
The thing I dont like is that we dont always know if our “voices” are being heard. How do we know the goverment just decides for us. They are the great power they decide everything we should limit there power. Us people have a right!
Does it really matter on what we have to say? what we chose doesnt really make a difference because politics use the “best” method to cheat into winning. the system should be left the way it is. it has worked in the past and it will continue to work in the future. District vote plan might be a good plan, if it is used “wisely” by the people and the politics.
I have to say currently I’m not the lest bit savy on electoral votes, but I agree with Lauri on the topic. Sure there are people out there, the many who can comprehend the system but I think in its many ways its still somewhat currupt. How? The system in general, giving the few people (senators and whatnot) that higher power to make more ‘effective’ decisions then the majority, its bull. Nonsense. The idea gets me upset because I’ll be paying taxes one day, contributing to this America in all its currupt and feel not the least bit redeemed or leveled. That even in my going out and voting, its not so much a vote but a sheet of paper they said I should REALLY consider checking because it Should make a difference. But will it. You know?
I think that each person in the US needs their voice to be heard. The Winner Take All system right now doesn’t give American citizens that power.
For this reason I think that the second option, the District Vote, would give everyone a chance to express themselves. This will give Americans more control over who exactly they elect for Presidency. If our personal votes count for more, then we will feel better about our choice for President. Americans will not always agree, but at least we can be given the chance to pick someone and have our decision make an impact.
I believe that we should determine the presidency by a national popular vote. The Electoral College was originally conceived because the founding fathers thought the common man lacking in too much intelligence to decide on a president all on his own. Now I do believe it is too late to change from the Electoral College to a nation popular vote for the 2008 elections, but we should start the process of amending the constitution so that by the time the 2012 elections roll around we will be having a national popular vote. Representative democracy works well for the country on many issues, however we should have direct control over whom we chose to lead our country. The archaic voting laws of land ownership and wealthy Men have been thrown out and the Electoral College should go with them as well.
Although the Winner Takes All Vote may have been working for a while now, I for one disagree with this form of voting. By using this method, it in a way shuts out some Americans’ views and opinions by just ignoring them. This in turn leads me to believing that the District Vote Plan seems like a better method. By using this plan, it gives the American people the satisfaction of knowing that their vote counted for the person they believe was best. This method of voting also enables the candidate to recieve the right amount of votes he actually had in the first place.
I have to say that presently I am not satisfied with our current system, which is why I would prefer the district vote plan. I think US citizens would prefer having their voices and opinions heard rather than being ignored and disregarded as they feel they are being right now. With this plan a candidate can essentially win their part of electoral votes they earn rather than majority winning all electoral votes. This system will give Americans power to express their views more effectively and make an impact on which candidate they’ve elected. Perhaps if Americans feel their votes counted for more and made more of an impact then they would maybe stop complaining so much on the winner of the election.
Out of all the different ways there is for one to vote i think the winner take all vote is the best, but i really just dont like this whole electoral vote thing to me it seems pretty stupid and i think the numbers should go by each individual U.S. citizen and not by the majority. it would be alot more numbers i kno but to me it seems really fair there isnt the same amount of people in each state so this would be kind of fair for everybody.
I believe that the District vote plan is a much better than the Winner Take All method. With the District method, you can get a better representation of what the people really want. It gives the voters more power as to who gets elected into office. This would give voters the assurance that their vote actually counts even if their candidate does not win the state vote. This may increase the amount of voters participating because their vote will count even if their candidate lost the state.
Of the four methods presented to allocate California’s electoral votes, I believe that our current method of winner-take-all works best. Being the most populous state, winning California’s 55 electoral votes prove to be advantageous for any presidential candidate. Creating a method that splits up the votes by district or percentage based on popular vote strips California of its power during election time. If this were to happen, then it would only be fair if they carry out this action with other states like Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio which have twenty or more electoral votes.
Changing the system for one state would only open the door for other states to question their system, which may lead to confusion. It seems that the only benefit to replacing the winner-take-all method to the district vote, popular vote or state vote plan would be to make it more difficult to acquire the needed 270 points to win. This change doesn’t seem worth it to change the entire system, so I’d rather we kept the simple and effective method that has served us for years.
I believe the the district voting system is probably the best. it poses the possibility that an able minded candidate can receive a percentage of votes equivalent to the amount of support in the electoral college. This allows for the election of a more qualified president seeing as how he has backing from his peers. Also this form of voting ensures that one candidate doesn’t win by a marginal amount in one state and reap the benefits of a having won a whole state of votes. finally the one draw back of this form of voting is the more likely outcome of a tie and also that larger states can be an influence on the new balance of the electoral college
Acoording to me the best system we can use towards the presidential vote is the district vote plan. With the winner-takes all vote who knows if the people who are voting mostly voting have actually paid attention to what the candidates are bringing to the table and not just voted for that certain person because they had the most advertisements or promised to change so many things in exchange of winning your vote. The winner takes all vote in a way blocks the voices of the americans and who they would like to be their president.With the district vote more voices will be heard,hopefully they will be voices with knowledge behind them.
Out of the four methods i would prefer the district method because it would be more precise on what every state wants. Knowing what the country really wants as their president and now just voting just because. Using this method can change everyones state of mind by actually wanting to vote because they know they would be able to make a change. One vote would be able to change everything,its not as if its going to take 30 people to change the vote on a person. So in my opinion this is the method we should be using. I know this method would also work for many years because people know this makes a difference.
im going to go with the majority which is number two, the direct vote. i really like that one out of the 4 the best. i think it is fair to everyone so you wont hear that many people complain about the voting system. i think the current system is pretty whack because the people that lost the vote will just go to the other president that they did not vote for. everyone vote counts to the right ppresident they want to be elected.
I say out with the whole system. If I had my way, I’d do it oldschool – fight for what you believe in. Can you really tell how a person will act when all they do is talk? One of the first things we learn to do as children is to lie. Politicians are masters at talking about what they will do; how they will fight for us. But what is really shown in a debate? Quick thinking, persuasive creativity, and charm. The only true test of a person is a battle. Only the extreme pressure of a fight can bring out the truth in a person, so why should we even bother voting for someone who can talk there way into the presidency? I say we starve all the candidates, give them swords, throw them in a pit, and watch them fight it out. Then we vote on who we think has fought for their beliefs. All the clues to their reactions will be there – how they react to surprises, defeat, victory, and humiliation. Some will be quick to act and jump right in the fury, while others will sit back in cunning anticipation still planning their first move.
But other than that, I like the third choice – the Popular Vote Plan. Finally the voters get their voice heard. It should have been that way in the first place. The people, whether or not they make intelligent decisions, should be the ones electing their own president.
In another light, we’re still here aren’t we? It’s worked in the past and it’ll work in the future. Every plan has its own pros and cons. Never will there be a time when everyone is happy. But caution is advised. If we start changing the election process, then what’s to say that we won’t rewrite the Constitution and perhaps allow foreign-born hopefuls to run for president? This tiny change could blow-up to a catastrophe… or not.
I guess out of the choices we have, I choose the district vote plan. Voters want to feel that their voice is heard. And it’s the closest way. And having the voters voices heard more, will make those who don’t vote, possibly want to vote knowing that their opinions actually count for something and are being taken into consideration.
I like the idea of the District vote plan where you only get what you earned. This would probably encourage more people to vote because none of the votes would become meaningless and the candidate with the most electoral votes wouldn’t have all of them but only what he earned. To me it seems fair this way.
The current electorial system, which has been in place for many year, has been tried and tested by time. It is easy to critisize the current system and point out faults but until it produce poor reasults, we should avoid ammending the constitution by changing the system. Idealy, we could creat a new perfect system on our first attempt however, things do not always work out as planned and we can not explore all the possible ramifications of our actions. Like the saying goes “If its not broken then don’t fix it”. This philosophy should also be implemented into our political system. Some possibly detrimental aspects of changing the election system are complications during tallying. We should leave things working the way they are rather then create new problems for ourselves
i think that we should leave it the way it is.
however, i do think that plan number two could work too because it seems fair that they get that amount of votes. i personally don’t like the electoral vote thing becuase i thnk we should just keep it to the popular vote.
I think the popular vote would be the best one because if we go by the other plans than possibilities are that there can be a mistake when it comes to counting it. For example, it has been said that in the last president election President Bush only won because there was ONE point that led to his win. When in reality it was a tie. They said that Bush won because they did not want to go through the hassle of voting again. Therefor i think that the best way is the “popular plan” because it will show what of the majority of people want in a president. And there won’t be much conflict. That way results show more clearly on what the people need, and what are the strengths of the presidents that are running for presidency.
I believe that the district voting will have a better result because the people in the district could have thier votes heared and it would be easier to count since the current voting system would Screw in the process
As many others have said, why not let every vote count? It would encourage more people to turn out (presidential elections have, what, a 50% turnout?) and give each person an equal part of the democratic system. The current system can’t be changed before the next election–its too close, and would cause too much uproar, but is definately an idea for after the 08 evections.
yeah…
like someone had already stated our government should be chosen ForUsByUs
but first we’d need to conform to a homogeneous approach to the voting system
hat electoral system going on makes us feel like our viewpoint on the matter just doesn’t…matter.
give us some word!
plan 3′s definitely got my vote