Comments on: Utah to Split Electoral Vote? http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/ Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:12:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Will http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2556 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:41:28 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2556 It would decide who was sent to the electoral college, which would decide who got the votes. So in fact it would have a very big effect. Also, faithless electors have come along quite frequently, but you cite the "last time" as 1972 when a Libertarian received a vote. In reality, this has happened four more times in the last 35 years. In 1976 a Ford elector voted for Reagan. In 1988 a Dukakis elector voted for Lloyd Bensten. In 2000 a Gore elector abstained from voting to protest for D.C. Statehood. And in 2004 a Kerry elector voted for Edwards. It would decide who was sent to the electoral college, which would decide who got the votes. So in fact it would have a very big effect.

Also, faithless electors have come along quite frequently, but you cite the “last time” as 1972 when a Libertarian received a vote. In reality, this has happened four more times in the last 35 years.

In 1976 a Ford elector voted for Reagan. In 1988 a Dukakis elector voted for Lloyd Bensten. In 2000 a Gore elector abstained from voting to protest for D.C. Statehood. And in 2004 a Kerry elector voted for Edwards.

]]> by: Allen Hacker http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2554 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:10:15 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2554 This would have little to no legal effect, since electoral college electors are not required to cast their votes in accord with the popular vote. This was proven the last time by Roger McBride, who cast his electoral college vote for John Hospers / Toni Nathan, the first Libertarian candidates for US President / V-President. This also made Nathan the first woman ever to receive an electoral college vote. -0- This would have little to no legal effect, since electoral college electors are not required to cast their votes in accord with the popular vote. This was proven the last time by Roger McBride, who cast his electoral college vote for John Hospers / Toni Nathan, the first Libertarian candidates for US President / V-President. This also made Nathan the first woman ever to receive an electoral college vote.

0

]]> by: David A Spitzley http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2545 Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:25:58 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2545 The only real problem with using the popular vote is that extremely deep support in one region can outweight light opposition in a much larger area. A friend of mine likens it to sports playoffs: you don't get in because of your total score in all games; you get in based on winning many games. That way a lopsided victory in one game doesn't outweight losing dozens of others. Going to the popular vote could leave the country with a President who was elected even though the population of only a handful of states gave him/her majority support. On another front, going with the popular vote increases the payoff to vote fraud. Right now fraudulent votes for a candidate can only skew a single state's electoral vote, and there's no point in trying to inflate a candidate's margin of victory beyond the point where they win that state. In a popular vote electoral system, supporters of a Democratic presidential candidate in Salt Lake City, or a Republican presidential candidate in Detroit, would see a national payoff to falsifying votes even though the odds of altering the winner for their state, or even their city, might be nil. The only real problem with using the popular vote is that extremely deep support in one region can outweight light opposition in a much larger area. A friend of mine likens it to sports playoffs: you don’t get in because of your total score in all games; you get in based on winning many games. That way a lopsided victory in one game doesn’t outweight losing dozens of others. Going to the popular vote could leave the country with a President who was elected even though the population of only a handful of states gave him/her majority support.

On another front, going with the popular vote increases the payoff to vote fraud. Right now fraudulent votes for a candidate can only skew a single state’s electoral vote, and there’s no point in trying to inflate a candidate’s margin of victory beyond the point where they win that state. In a popular vote electoral system, supporters of a Democratic presidential candidate in Salt Lake City, or a Republican presidential candidate in Detroit, would see a national payoff to falsifying votes even though the odds of altering the winner for their state, or even their city, might be nil.

]]> by: Freelancer http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2528 Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:31:44 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2528 Oh, I left out an important thing too. Those eleven districts would go to one party also. Oh, I left out an important thing too. Those eleven districts would go to one party also.

]]> by: Mike Grimes http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2526 Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:43:19 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2526 Whats wrong with using the popular vote. This is a nice alternitive. As for splitting votes by congressional district that has disaster written all over it. As long as partisans controll the district boundries thats not an option I want to see come into play. Imagine this senerio in a relitivly close state like Minnesota, Democrats win 52% to 48% (for arguments sake we'll leave third parties out of this) But Republicans win 7 districts by 2 or 3 % while Democrats win one district by 30%, the end result Republicans get 7 EC Votes Democrats get 3. Whats wrong with using the popular vote.

This is a nice alternitive. As for splitting votes by congressional district that has disaster written all over it. As long as partisans controll the district boundries thats not an option I want to see come into play.

Imagine this senerio in a relitivly close state like Minnesota, Democrats win 52% to 48% (for arguments sake we’ll leave third parties out of this) But Republicans win 7 districts by 2 or 3 % while Democrats win one district by 30%, the end result Republicans get 7 EC Votes Democrats get 3.

]]> by: Freelancer http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2521 Mon, 13 Feb 2006 05:57:36 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2521 Austin's got a point, it would have to be done nationally. But it would be a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't exactly like the idea of proportional votes. I think the best system would be to have the winner of the popular vote of the state receive two votes and have one vote for each of the congressional districts won by those presidential candidates. One other interesting thing should be pointed out. As to the argument about diminishing states political power. Before 1842 there were states that elected their congressmen statewide. For example: if a state had eleven reps. all of them would be voted on statewide. But then Congress required that there be districts for each congressman. So, you can compare those systems to the electoral college systems and make your own conclusions. Back to the old way of electing congressman, did it diminish a states power and influence? Well, yeah. But it didn't represent other people in the state. Sooo, a per district system of electing a president might prove to be beneficial. Hay, maybe a mixture of systems might be good too. Austin’s got a point, it would have to be done nationally. But it would be a step in the right direction. Personally, I don’t exactly like the idea of proportional votes. I think the best system would be to have the winner of the popular vote of the state receive two votes and have one vote for each of the congressional districts won by those presidential candidates.

One other interesting thing should be pointed out. As to the argument about diminishing states political power. Before 1842 there were states that elected their congressmen statewide. For example: if a state had eleven reps. all of them would be voted on statewide. But then Congress required that there be districts for each congressman. So, you can compare those systems to the electoral college systems and make your own conclusions. Back to the old way of electing congressman, did it diminish a states power and influence? Well, yeah. But it didn’t represent other people in the state. Sooo, a per district system of electing a president might prove to be beneficial. Hay, maybe a mixture of systems might be good too.

]]> by: Austin Cassidy http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2519 Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:15:14 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2519 I don't dislike the idea at all, but it has to be done nationally. The problem is definitely as simple as it this being put into effect in one or two states... because it will benefit one party or the other and there's no incentive for that to happen right now. Why would Utah Republicans give up their virtually guaranteed right to all of Utah's electoral votes if other states aren't doing the same thing? I don’t dislike the idea at all, but it has to be done nationally. The problem is definitely as simple as it this being put into effect in one or two states… because it will benefit one party or the other and there’s no incentive for that to happen right now.

Why would Utah Republicans give up their virtually guaranteed right to all of Utah’s electoral votes if other states aren’t doing the same thing?

]]> by: David A Spitzley http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2518 Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:49:32 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/02/12/utah-to-split-electoral-vote/#comment-2518 Actually, it isn't as straightforward as that. If a state's electoral votes aren't in play because of massive partisan advantage on one side, there's really no reason for presidential candidates, or political parties for that matter, to pay attention to the state, as it is basically a fixed point. By splitting the votes a bit, there's a much greater reason for both of the major parties to come courting. Personally, prefer giving the two Senate-based electoral votes to the leading candidate and then splitting the rest proportionately, as that still ensures candidates need to fight for as many states as possible, while giving more representation to minority positions. Actually, it isn’t as straightforward as that. If a state’s electoral votes aren’t in play because of massive partisan advantage on one side, there’s really no reason for presidential candidates, or political parties for that matter, to pay attention to the state, as it is basically a fixed point. By splitting the votes a bit, there’s a much greater reason for both of the major parties to come courting. Personally, prefer giving the two Senate-based electoral votes to the leading candidate and then splitting the rest proportionately, as that still ensures candidates need to fight for as many states as possible, while giving more representation to minority positions.

]]>