Opinions expressed on the Whig Blog, in the Forums and in comments are those of the individual authors and do not necessarilly represent positions of the Modern Whig Party. The ability to post opinion pieces and comments is not restricted to Whig members (although blog entries are by invitation.) These items are not pre-screened but are subject to our Terms of Use. Please Contact Us if you have concerns about the content.

"Winner-take-all" should be re-considered

Each election there are some who want to change how we elect the President. Specifically, there are calls to do away with the Electoral College.

I believe the Electoral College is a valid and vital concept. What I disagree with is that the electoral votes are awarded on a "winner take all" basis per State.

I think it would better serve our Republic to award Electoral College votes on a per Congressional district basis. That is, each vote is awarded to the winner of a Congressional district, and the overall State winner gets the two votes represented by the Senate seats. There are a couple of States that already do this.

Changing to this would have no impact on the several small States that have only a single Congressional district. It is the large States like California, Texas and New York that would see a potentially dramatic change is how their votes are allocated.

It will be difficult to do this on a national level, but we can do it here is Nevada just as those other States have. We might wind up splitting our votes 4 - 2, but voters in both our rural and urban areas could feel as if their vote mattered.

This is the position that I hope the Nevada Whigs will adopt and that our candidates for State office will advocate.

Jim Bacon
Chair, Whig Party of Nevada

odenwalt
Offline
Whig
Joined: 12/12/2012

I agree that the electoral college system is broken. A presedential candidate does not have to get approval of all of the states in the union, just a handfull to get enough electoral votes. The Instant runoff voting system is a better system followed by 2 electorial votes per state. This way all states and all individuals have equal representation in the presedential election. The vise-presedential election should also be seperate, and not part of the ticket vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.

ac-astro
Offline
Whig
Joined: 12/22/2012

I might be interested if the states pass a constitutional amendment to use a non-political objective algorithm to draw congressional district lines, there are a few geometric and mathematical algorithms out there to use. Until then, it seems to me voters would be disenfranchised, especially in states like PA. I think the Whigs can make head-way here, in advocating such non-partisan and mathematical algorithms, then advocating the electoral change thereafter.

lwlucas
Offline
Joined: 11/17/2013

I concur completely. The electoral college is one institution that protects the rights of of a minority (rural) from the tyranny of the majority (urban). I worked for almost 30 years in eastern Kern County and I found that folks in Kern, Inyo, Mono, and northern San Bernadino counties felt more in tune with Nevada than the urban centers of California. Here in Oregon there is talk of southern Oregon and northern California seceding to form the state of "Jefferson". I think this phenomenon exists in any state with a large (in population) urban center and a large (in area) rural population. The exception, oddly enough, seems to be Texas, which is the only state that could split itself in up to 5 states.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer