Uhhhhh Electoral College :(

What Gech said.

(Also, brilliant name for a thread supposedly coming from NP.)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think that's why a lot of people are in favor of states switching to a proportional electoral college voting system instead of today's predominantly winner-takes-all style.

Also, I wish they'd stop saying Pennsylvania was a swing state. We're overwhelmingly Democrat since both of our population centers are, like, 80% democrat.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Guru

Basically, it invalidates the opinions of people that live in less-influential electoral states. Just like Mikey has said five times in this thread already. Just because someone lives in a state with a large population doesn't mean that their opinion is more valuable than people anywhere else.

Wouldn't a person in New Hampshire be more likely to sway the balance of their state's voting turnout than a person in California? So a single vote in NH ought to have more weight than one in CA (even more so with BM's comparison of the number of people each electoral college person has to represent in CA versus WY).

Originally Posted by Guru

If we're so hung up over giving people these electoral points, then get rid of the winner-take-all scenario and reward the candidates a proportional amount of the electoral votes from each state. That way everyone's vote is weighed equally and everyone in the country has a say who becomes President.

There's a few states that have set up their electoral colleges that way.

Personally, I have no problem with the electoral college system, but I would prefer more states move away from the winner-takes-all format and closer to a proportionality.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Then it's not the electoral college you dislike, but the way that states handle it. =\/

(Also I'd rather be in the small state with more power for our size than we should have.)

Most amazing jew boots