Gay Marriage Map

[Crackpot]

You'd need to solve gerrymandering before implementing something like that else you run into problems like my state where popular votes go largely democratic but most congressional districts are safe rebublican

[oldr_n_wsr]

How did Maine and the other states do it?

[Guinevere]

How did Maine and the other states do it?

Maine has only have two congressional districts, Nebraska three. Much simpler.

[Big RR]

Gerrymandering is a problem, but then so is the winner take all system used by most states. One thing that might be achievable is to apportion the electoral votes along the split of the popular vote. You'd have to have strict rounding rules, but it is a system that is a lot more representative of the total vote.

[Guinevere]

If you do that, then you might as well do away with the electoral college in the first place. Don't forget, the point is the balancing between large and small states. Do you really want California and Texas to decide every national election? At least with the electoral college, and some of the closer elections over the last decade, more states seem to matter to the candidates.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Maine has only have two congressional districts, Nebraska three. Much simpler.

Yes it is. Thanks for that info.

At least with the electoral college, and some of the closer elections over the last decade, more states seem to matter to the candidates

More, but not all. My presidential vote is useless here in NY as it goes to dems 99.99% of the time ( think the last time MY went rep was for Reagan). So much so that the dem candidates don't pay us much attention, unless they are fundraising and the rep candidates don't bother at all.

[Big RR]

Double post; sorry.

[Big RR]

If you do that, then you might as well do away with the electoral college in the first place. Don't forget, the point is the balancing between large and small states. Do you really want California and Texas to decide every national election? At least with the electoral college, and some of the closer elections over the last decade, more states seem to matter to the candidates.

No, I mean each state can apportion it's votes according to the breakdown of the popular vote in that state. right now even a single vote can tip all of the electoral votes to a single candidate in a bitterly divided state.

As for doing away with the electoral college altogether, that's for another thread. But do you really want the residents of smaller states to have many times more power with their vote than those in larger states? As every state gets at least 3 votes, those with states having small populations get a lot more of an electoral vote per capita than those in larger states. See the following list:

Rank Electoral vote ratio
# 1 Wyoming: 0.589 per 100,000 people
# 2 District of Columbia: 0.545 per 100,000 people
# 3 Vermont: 0.482 per 100,000 people
# 4 North Dakota: 0.471 per 100,000 people
# 5 Alaska: 0.452 per 100,000 people
# 6 South Dakota: 0.387 per 100,000 people
# 7 Rhode Island: 0.372 per 100,000 people
# 8 Delaware: 0.356 per 100,000 people
# 9 Montana: 0.321 per 100,000 people
# 10 Hawaii: 0.314 per 100,000 people
# 11 New Hampshire: 0.305 per 100,000 people
# 12 Maine: 0.303 per 100,000 people
# 13 Nebraska: 0.284 per 100,000 people
# 14 Idaho: 0.28 per 100,000 people
# 15 West Virginia: 0.275 per 100,000 people
# 16 New Mexico: 0.259 per 100,000 people
# 17 Iowa: 0.236 per 100,000 people
# 18 Kansas: 0.219 per 100,000 people
# 19 Arkansas: 0.216 per 100,000 people
# 20 Nevada: 0.207 per 100,000 people
# 21 Mississippi: 0.205 per 100,000 people
# 22 Utah: 0.202 per 100,000 people
= 23 Connecticut: 0.199 per 100,000 people
= 23 Louisiana: 0.199 per 100,000 people
= 25 Alabama: 0.197 per 100,000 people
= 25 Oklahoma: 0.197 per 100,000 people
# 27 Minnesota: 0.195 per 100,000 people
# 28 Colorado: 0.193 per 100,000 people
= 29 Oregon: 0.192 per 100,000 people
= 29 Kentucky: 0.192 per 100,000 people
# 31 Missouri: 0.19 per 100,000 people
= 32 South Carolina: 0.188 per 100,000 people
= 32 Massachusetts: 0.188 per 100,000 people
# 34 Tennessee: 0.184 per 100,000 people
# 35 Wisconsin: 0.181 per 100,000 people
# 36 Maryland: 0.179 per 100,000 people
= 37 Indiana: 0.175 per 100,000 people
= 37 Washington: 0.175 per 100,000 people
# 39 Ohio: 0.174 per 100,000 people
# 40 North Carolina: 0.173 per 100,000 people
= 41 New Jersey: 0.172 per 100,000 people
= 41 Virginia: 0.172 per 100,000 people
# 43 Pennsylvania: 0.169 per 100,000 people
= 44 Arizona: 0.168 per 100,000 people
= 44 Michigan: 0.168 per 100,000 people
= 46 Georgia: 0.165 per 100,000 people
= 46 Illinois: 0.165 per 100,000 people
# 48 New York: 0.161 per 100,000 people
= 49 California: 0.152 per 100,000 people
= 49 Florida: 0.152 per 100,000 people
# 51 Texas: 0.149 per 100,000 people


So a vote in California speaks about 25% as loudly as a single vote in Wyoming; no wonder the big states don't want to apportion their votes




Weighted average: 0.2 per 100,000 people

[Gob]

Your system is fucked

(I think I may have mentioned that before?;) )

[rubato]

And yet you need us to lead you.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

If you do that, then you might as well do away with the electoral college in the first place. Don't forget, the point is the balancing between large and small states. Do you really want California and Texas to decide every national election? At least with the electoral college, and some of the closer elections over the last decade, more states seem to matter to the candidates.

In fact I think the opposite has happened - the only states that matter to the candidates are the swing states; no one is going to bother spending time or money or political capital trying to appeal to voters in New York or Texas or Illinois or Georgia, but they will sure as hell hit every pancake breakfast and rubber chicken dinner in Ohio and Florida. If the election was based on popular vote, candidates would not be able to take any state for granted because votes from all of them will determine the margin of victory. Sure, North Dakota might feel dwarfed by the massive voting power of California, but if there is a repeat of the 2000 election, the candidates will be paying attention to Idaho and to Vermont and to Alaska and to Hawaii, because any of them could decide the outcome of a race that close.