That’s the plan being proposed by Republicans in California.
During the 2004 election, President Bush was handily defeated in California but carried 22 of the state’s districts. If the proposed change had been in effect then, he would have been awarded 22 of the state’s electoral votes with Democrat John Kerry winning the rest.
So how would it look if Virginia did something similar? Virginia has 13 electoral votes. If 2 were allocated to the winner, as in the California proposal, and the remainder allocated by CD, Kerry would have picked up two electoral votes, since he won two CDs.
Obviously, those two wouldn’t have been enough to put him over. Nevertheless, the effect would be move closer to the popular vote as the mechanism for determining the president.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Kerry would have won 2 in Virginia, which would have been a net of four for him since Bush had four less. That wouldn’t have made the difference in 2004 but in 2000 – it would have pushed the election out of the electoral college since neither would have received 270 votes.
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.
I think you mean Bush would have had 2 less, but I get your point 😉
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!
The states can do whatever they want. I say have the legislature chose the electors. (That would have been the simple solution in Florida in 2000, but the legislators were too chicken to do it.) The cost of campaigns might drop dramatically!
It’s a good idea — if all 50 states do it at the same time. But fragmenting some states while leaving others winner-take-all leaves an uneven playing field.
So what, Green? That is a choice each state can make.
In fact, Maine and Nebraska already have just such systems. Maine has had it since 1972!
By the gerrymandered districts we’ve got now? No thanks. Bad idea.
No, it’s not a vote each state should constitutionally be allowed to make. Equal representation would fairly clearly be violated.
You’ll have a Hell of a time getting that amendment passed, Brad.
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.
And Mouse highlights the problem that actually *should* be addressed – amend the Const. to provide for direct popular election of the President and Vice President. That’s what folks should be working on.
(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? :)).
Well, BM, the smaller states would never go for it. It wouldn’t get past the Senate, much less be ratified.
The other problem, of course, is that in close elections, we would have to recount the whole country!
The problem is that the big states, specially Florida and California, are underrepresented politically. They have less votes per capita under the Electoral College and they are obviously underrepresented on Senate. And since Iowa won a big package of pork-barrel spending subsidies with it´s caucuses, everyone will want something similar…
But I think that democrats are thinking small. States like Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa and Colorado could easily compensate that…
Stop being rude, AEM. Use MB’s initials properly. It isn’t funny.
And Mouse highlights the problem that actually *should* be addressed – amend the Const. to provide for direct popular election of the President and Vice President. That’s what folks should be working on.
-MB
Why in the world would we want to do that?
I know some people who would prefer a parliamentary system, in which the PM can be recalled by a Vote of No Confidence.
I love how MB can favor direct popular election of the President while saying “I couldn’t imagine this country having an intelligent enough conversation”