Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
rupert-
how a state assigns it's electors is up to each state. most have set up a winner take all system but both nebraska and maine have races in each congressional district for a single elector with the remaining 2 electors based on the statewide vote. romney targeted maine's 2nd district and Obama the district including omaha although neither made a big push and both went with the rest of the state for their opponent.
solid red and blue states aren't going to change the winner take all system because the party in charge doesn't want to up even 1 or 2 electors to the other side. and swing states get a lot less important if there isn't a large basket of electors to play for so they don't want to change.
|
I don't think the winner take all rule is fair. If the election ended up coming down to Florida, and the democrat won Florida by 10,000 votes, that would mean that if 12,000 republicans from California moved to Florida and voted there, then the republican would win the election. That makes no sense. A person's vote should count equally, no matter what state they are voting from.
The present system is completely ridiculous. Think about how absurd this is. Republicans know that their vote doesn't count in California. So if a group of 1 million republicans in California got organized and decided that 3 groups of 300,000 would become residents of Virginia, Florida, and Ohio, and give up their status as California residents, then Romney would win the election. How ridiculous is that? It make no sense. Their votes have no value in California but would have tremendous value in other states. It shouldn't be like that. One votes should count as one vote, no matter where you live.