[CathyWhite]

Then conservatives from big states would have zero voice. I’d rather we eliminate winner-take-all states for national elections.

[stremba]

The Maine/Nebraska model for selection of electors is not bad. Two electors chosen via statewide vote total and one elector chosen by the vote in each congressional district. The current system likely over-rewards candidates winning close elections in a state (as an extreme example, Bush getting 27 EVs in 2000 for winning FL by about 500 votes) and gives at least some voters in less competitive states a meaningful reason to vote (Why would a Republican in CA even bother to vote in a Presidential election, for instance).

The problem is analogous to nuclear disarmament negotiations - who’s going to go first? In the old Cold War days, both we and the Russians would hesitate to give up our arsenals because if we did and the other guys didn’t we would be at their mercy. In like manner, a state that gives up a winner take all approach loses most of its influence in the election if other states don’t also go along. That’s probably why this will never actually happen.

[Verginius Rufus]

The winner-take-all system gives individual states greater clout. The big states get a lot of attention and the smaller states get some whereas they might be ignored entirely otherwise. In 2000 George W. Bush carried New Hampshire by a little more than 7,000 votes. If Gore had won New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes, he would have become President.

Of course it does cause many people to decide it is not worth the trouble of voting if they know that their state goes reliably for one party or the other.

[stremba]

Why would that be true? As a proportion of the whole House, the big states would not have any more representation than they do now. Suppose we doubled the size from 435 to 870. The size of each state’s delegation would simply double as well, and each state would be represented by the same percentage of House members as they are currently.

[Alberta's Child]

Then conservatives from big states would have zero voice.

It’s the exact opposite. California (for example) has 52 House seats. I’m not proposing a scenario where they’d fill those seats with 52 separate at-large elections. I’m saying they should have ONE election, and the top 52 candidates ranked by votes they receive would represent the state in Congress.

Just do the math. With 52 districts, a candidate who gets even just 4% of the votes is likely to end up among the top 20. Someone who gets 1% of the votes could make it into the top 40. #52 on the list might have only 0.5% of the vote.

You don’t think there are at least 15 conservatives in California who could get at least 1% in a statewide election?