Not necessarily. The statewide vote might be 60/40 and a district’s 52/48 in favor of the same candidate. In that case the result in the district is less proportional because a higher percentage were denied representation. Anyways, in those cases it is reversed, why should that comfort the minority? Even if they have less representation to lose they still lose it all.
In American political theory political representation implies voting. Are you using the older virtual representation model? Just because an elector votes the same way as an individual doesn’t mean the elector represents the individual. The elector only represents them if they helped elect the elector. A district system would create a slate of electors whose votes would coincide more closely with the popular vote in the state but that doesn’t mean the electors are more representative of the state population. Hell, unless the vote was really lopsided simply allowing each major party to just name half of a state’s electors no matter what the outcome gives a result that would coincide more closely than winner take all. That doesn’t make such a system representative. I guess though this is a situation where outcomes are more important than theory.
2 minus twenty one equals negative nineteen. Not 2.
Why do you think so? It isn’t in the interest of those running the “small” states to agree to assign their electors based on the overall popular vote. What I was saying here is that it doesn’t matter what they do with their electoral votes so long as enough “larger” states do agree.
Depends on what you consider a “small” state. I’m defining it as a state with three to five electors. By my count that makes 16 states or 32 senators. It takes 40 senators to filibuster and we would have to change the definition to states with seven electors to get that many. I don’t consider Oklahoma and Oregon to be “small” states. Even if you do that’s only 23 states or 46 senators. Six of 46 defectors is hardly “en masse”. How are you doing the math?
It is. I’m pointing out the discrepancy between popular and electoral vote, in the never-ending battle to obtain recognition that the EC is undemocratic. The winner-take-all approach ensures that the view of a state’s minority is immaterial no matter what. The ME/NE and proposed CO approaches make the EC more closely match the will of We the People than does winner-take-all, and they’re doable. That’s all.
Which is the problem, since there *aren’t * enough. That’s why you’re not addressing the real world.
It would make more sense, in this context, to define it as a state with more representation in the Senate and in the Electoral College than its percentage of the population, since that’s what’s at stake.
When two laws appear to contradict, the specific wins out over the general. The Constitution generally calls for equal protection," but specifically mandates the Electoral College. So there’s no contradiction here.
Now, should we elevate this “equal protection” ideal over the extant voting model?
No. Hell, no, in fact.
No matter how you elect representatives, you’ll end up with someone voting for a candidate that is not elected. That person is theoretically denied any representation (“George W. Bush is not MY President!”) But that’s inherent in the nature of a republican form of government. We don’t - nor should we - strive to ensure that the 2.8% of people that wanted to see Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan in office have someone to represent them 2.8% of the time, or that they somehow have a 2.8% vote in every decision that comes before the legislature or the executive.
Residents of states choose electors. Electors choose the President. Residents of states choose senators and congressmen, who then vote on legislation. That system adaquately - nay, SUPERBLY - balances the many competing goals of representation, and I’m quite happy with it.
Nevermind. I found the figures on my own. The cutoff point seems to be at the 19th most populous state: Maryland. Starting with Arizona states have a higher percentage of electors than of population. Hmmm. That’s discouraging.
Where’d everyone else go? We’re missing a pretty large potion of the voters here. 14% of people will vote for both options?
Anyway, it pretty much jibes with my general impression. There are people for it, but there seem to be more people against it, and the people against it come down on both sides of the aisle. I think the interesting thing about the issue is that I rarely (read: never) hear anyone espousing an opinion citing any party concerns in their decision. They don’t say they’re voting for it because it would give Kerry more votes or whatever. They seem to have very reasoned opinions about where this country is going and how we should get there, from a representation and political “justice” (for lack of a better word) point of view. Pretty refreshing, actually. Smart people can actually disagree with it and still remain civil to each other.
Put me in the “No” camp, though. If it was non-retroactive, I’d at least consider it. As it is, they should have gotten around to putting it on the ballot in an earlier election if they wanted it applied to this one.