"Winner take all" rule. What do you think?

[HashiriyaS14]

This pertains to the practice in the Electoral College of, when a candidate wins a majority in a state, they take ALL electoral votes from that state.

I'm not sure what I think of it, as I think that due to how certain states are aligned, it effectively "silences" a fair number of voters.

For instance, I worked an Obama table at an event this past weekend for the campaign. There was NO McCain table there, and I don't expect to ever really see much McCain presence in my area as it is solidly Democratic. The national McCain campaign won't spend money there as they know they can't win a majority in the state.

I'm not sure that's fair though. I have lots of friends across the state who are ardent McCain supporters. Wouldn't it make more sense for each candidate to just take away the number votes they win rather than the majority winner taking all of them?

For example, I think that a number of MD districts out to the west would probably sway to McCain. Consequently, in Texas, which is otherwise generally a solidly GOP State, urban Austin districts might go to the Dems.

I really have no idea if this sort of change would be biased towards one party or another, but if so, it means that the current system is the opposite and thus no better, objectively speaking.

[szh]

If you don't have a "Majority takes all" rules, then you might as well apply a "Popular vote" approach - the numbers work out to be the same.

Then, the whole Electoral College system goes away (and, yes, it does simplify things, IMHO).

<sarcasm mode on>But then, so does the hoopla, the spending, the city that gets the delegate visitors, the nepotism (who appoints Delegates and Super-Delegates?), etc., etc., etc. All of those would cease too! Horrors!!<sarcasm mode off>

The parties would never stand for it!

Z

[BigMACKenzie]

I agree, the only reason why we haven't eliminated the electoral college so far is for all the reasons szhosain listed. It just makes too much gd sense to let it go, so we must keep it!

[HashiriyaS14]

Well, technically, as it would still be a delegate system, only operating on the delegate level as opposed to whole states, there would technically still be an electoral college.

But yeah, I see what you mean, it's just another middleground of the same approach, why not eliminate it altogether?

[szh]

But yeah, I see what you mean, it's just another middleground of the same approach, why not eliminate it altogether?

Yup!

Z

[96Qowner]

I thought the problems with the Democratic primary this year were the perfect glaring example of the wisdom of exaggerating winning margins.

The Electoral College seems like an oddity, but it helps to prevent close races.

[OriginalWheelman]

The problem with the electoral college is that is was designed for a different view of the United States. The basic principle is in the Name, United States. When used anywhere else in the world, state means a sovereign country. To the founding Fathers, a strong central government was impractical, and detached from the people. The central government was similar to the EU. A general association of States for political and protective reasons. The Federal government has very few rights under the Constitution. They used those few rights to give themselves more power over times. Some of it good, some of it bad. Either way, it's time to reform our Federal government to suit the times. Our founding fathers were smart enough to realize this would happen and gave us the ability to amend the charter that brings the states together. I find it very surprising how few people actually have read the constitution. For example, this month alone I have been forced to correct 3 people who believe that separation of Church and State is in the Bill of Rights. The term "Separation of Church and State" is a spin on the 1st amendment's provision that states there shall be no established religion. Under that wording very few people would accept that a manger scene must be removed from government property. But by waving around "separation of church and state" many have done just that. People need to really look at things harder. There is more to the ocean than the surface.