Actually, Webb got 49.6%, Allen 49.2%, Green 1.1%, and write-ins 0.1%. Similarly, presidential candidates often “win” a state without actually getting a majority of the votes in that state, as Bush did in Florida in 2000.

From purely the perspective of the fact the voters of each Congressional district would have a say, the allocation would reflect the opinion of the voters in that CD.

Of course, once you put the politics into it, then the picture changes. For the very same reason that the Rs in CA are pressing for this, the Ds would resist it. And whose voice really gets lost? The voters.

Our winner-take-all system has resulted in a couple of times where the winner of the popular vote lost the election due to the allocation of EVs. I’d really rather see a move to the popular vote as the mechanism. And this would start down that path.

Other pieces, of course, is that the gerrymandering of districts would have to stop. And we are making progress in that area, as more states move towards non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions.

Under the proposed California plan, on the other hand, Democrats probably wouldn’t have won even a majority of the electoral votes from the state thanks to some pretty clever gerrymandering. Yet the statewide popular vote favored Dems by a narrow margin.

How does that reflect an stronger role for popular vote in Presidential Selection, pray tell?

Might have to agree with you on that.

~

Brian, it’s people like you who would stand in the way of an intelligent conversation.

Why in the world would we want to do that?

But I think that democrats are thinking small. States like Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa and Colorado could easily compensate that…

The other problem, of course, is that in close elections, we would have to recount the whole country!

(I used to have these wonderful arguments with a scary-smart super conservative law prof of mine. And sometimes we’d get to a point where he’d just say “Well, if you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.” Which used to annoy the hell out of me, because I couldn’t imagine this country having an intelligent enough conversation to amend the Constitution (and this was even in the days before impeachment . . ). But something as simple as this? What kind of democracy-hating person would stand up against it? ).

Anyway, you seem to be under the misunderstanding that you have the right to vote for President. You do not. In fact, only the electors vote for the President. We vote for the electors only by the decree of the state legislatures. The electors do not have to vote for the candidate you want them to vote for.

In fact, Maine and Nebraska already have just such systems. Maine has had it since 1972!

Agreed that it should be all or none. (The linked article says that Maine & Nebraska are the only ones doing it this way.) Plus, a change like this would really change the way the campaigns are run, and the cost of campaigns would skyrocket, even more than they have already!

Even with that, all states should do it or no states. If California does it then that means Republicans will start picking up more votes as California typically votes Democratic and is currently winner take all.. If Texas does it then vice versa. As a Democrat, the worst thing that could happen would be for California, New York, and Pennsylvania to implement it while Texas, Indiana, Missouri and any number of southern states do not.