[SoFloFreeper]

I disagree with this move. Of course in the end the decision is that of Nebraska--I would never interfere with that principle--but I like the idea of districts deciding what electoral vote they award.

Consider if the law followed by Maine and Nebraska were in place in 2012.

2012 represented the first time since 1960 that the winner of the election did not win the popular vote in a majority of congressional districts. As President Obama was reelected, the reduction of his overall percentage of the vote from 53.7 in 2008 to 52.0 in 2012 also resulted in a majority of districts voting for Romney. Obama, the Democrat, ‘won’ 209 districts while the Republican, former Governor Romney, ‘won’ 226.

That would put Romney in the lead--though not at a win.

Now, if I recall correctly, in Nebraska and Maine, the OTHER two electoral votes go to the "overall" statewide winner.

Romney won 24 states in 2012, which would have given him 48 more electoral votes if the Nebraska/Maine model were followed.

226+48=274 Electoral votes.

Valerie's man-child was able to seize 26 states plus the DC region. That would net her team 55 EVs.

209+55=264.

Romney would be the one working to rebuild America, instead of Hussein doing Val's bidding in destroying the republic.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That's pure democracy, which is why the founders created the electoral college in the first place.

Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler “Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic”

[the_daug]

I wonder how that would have worked in Bush and Clinton years too.

[xzins]

We should also oppose winner-take-all states in primaries. It should be district by district goes to the district winner. Blue states are winner-take-all, they vote for the more liberal republican, they allow cross-over voting, and they tilt the victory toward the establishment.

[TBP]

There are three basic systems as state can use, with some degree of vaitiaon in each:

1. Winner-take-all, the system most states use. If you carry the state, you get all the electoral votes.

2. The district system, which Nebraska and Maine use. If you carry the state, you get the two “at large” electors, but the candidate that carries each congressional district gets that district’s elector.

3. Proportional representation, which I don’t believe any state uses. Simply put, if you get 51 percent of the votes, you get a slight majority of the electors. if you get 60 percent, you get 3/5 of the electors (or as close as they can get to that.)

Constitutionally, it is up to the legislature of each state to determine how electors shall be chosen. (They could just do it themselves, if they so chose.)