Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TigerClaws
There's a difference between proportional electoral votes and the district-based system that Maine and Nebraska use. I'd be OK with the latter, but a direct proportional allocation of electoral votes would present all kinds of problems.

It's probably not in a state's best interest to do this anyway. What would happen if Clinton got 51% of the popular vote in California and Trump got 49%? If the 55 electoral votes are awarded proportionally, then Clinton would get 28 and Trump would get 27. This means that California effectively would have only one electoral vote in the presidential election. Even in a major blowout where one candidate gets 65% and the other gets 35%, you're looking at a 36-19 split in the electoral vote ... which means California's electoral vote gets heavily diluted compared to other large states.

27 posted on 11/16/2016 6:01:05 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

No. California would have 55, but the 49% crowd in California wouldn’t be completely disenfranchised.

I think we need to keep Dems on the defensive. They are all about one person/ one vote and don’t disenfranchise voters. So they can agree not to do that here and allow Californians the chance to be represented in the Electoral College proportional to their vote.


29 posted on 11/16/2016 6:06:31 PM PST by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson