[dfwgator]

While I am not in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College, I do wonder about it.

So you mean to tell me if a Candidate wins the California vote by just one vote, he gets ALL of California’s EVs?

I don’t see how that’s really fair, neither.

[Reily]

Breaking it up by Congressional district might be better. ..maybe

[Freedumb]

I personally prefer the way Mane and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes. One per congressional district and two to the winner of the entire state. It would eliminate candidates ignoring entire states that are unwinnable if there are districts that are worth fighting over in that state.

[Jagermonster]

Reply to #42—

While I am not in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College, I do wonder about it.

So you mean to tell me if a Candidate wins the California vote by just one vote, he gets ALL of California’s EVs?

I don’t see how that’s really fair, neither.

It's a states rights thing, designed to give states a say in the selection of the president, and acts as a buffer against population when selecting the president.

It does so by acting as an amplifier for the society and culture of the state. The say that a state has in selecting the president should represent the societal and cultural norms of the state.

This recognizes the notion that the voters of a state, as a group, are more likely to share similar culture and societal values than people of different states, or in the aggregate across the nation.

For example, you, as a Texan, are most likely to agree with the voting block made up of all other Texans, rather than with the voters of the nation as a whole, or with the voters of a different state. Even Texan Democrats and Texan Republicans are likely to have a uniquely Texan perspective that is distinct when compared with the aggregate views of Democrats or Republicans nationwide.

Consider, for example, the difference between a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Republican, or a Texas Democrat and a Massachusetts Democrat. Massachusetts Democrats are likely to champion positions that Texas Democrats might find questionable, or even repugnant.

Texas Democrats might be more inclined to vote for a Republican President, and Massachusetts Republicans more inclined to vote for a Democrat President.

(Or consider how you, as a Texan, feel about Mitt Romney.)

For an even closer comparison, Consider Pennsylvania vs. New York. In Pennsylvania, Democrat, union coal miners and steelworkers make up a much larger portion of the Pennsylvania cultural and societal landscape than in the similarly located New York. This gives Pennsylvania a very different perspective on what makes a good president than New York, and put Pennsylvania in the Trump column in 2016

In short, the states get to pick the President, based on their collective culture.

[rxsid]

"While I am not in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College, I do wonder about it.

So you mean to tell me if a Candidate wins the California vote by just one vote, he gets ALL of California’s EVs?

I don’t see how that’s really fair, neither."

No. Not by 1 vote. If that where to happen, there would be a runoff election by law.

In CA, to win all EC votes, one must get 50.1 percent of the vote [1]. In 2016, CA cast 14,181,595 votes for president[2]. Assuming only 2 candidates, and every vote was cast for one or the other, that means, the EC vote winner must get 7,104,979 votes to the second place winner 7,076,616. A difference of 28,363 votes. So not even close to just 1 vote.

Now, is the EC system perfect? Well, depends on who you ask. Is it better than winner take all? The framers and founders thought so, and so did generations after them. Why? Without it, the massive population centers on the coasts will become the only place presidents paid attention to, effectively pushing the rest of the country out of our republic form of federal government. Even less "United" States of America. Would give a whole new meaning to "flyover country."