10-24-2011, 10:09 PM
davester wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Okay. As i stated above, i don't consider the 2000 election alone to be sufficient grounds for amending the Constitution, but it's okay if we disagree about that.
This makes me wonder what state you live in. I live in California, so my vote is not worth much, which is why the candidates don't bother to campaign very hard here. Heck, they have to spend four times as much per vote here than they do in some other states.
I don't think that has anything to do with how much candidates spend in California, but with how California apportions its electoral votes (see below).
Ted King wrote:
I totally agree but would say it more flawed than that even. Under the current system, look at how much sway voters like Cuban Americans in Florida have. In the Gore election all it took was a very small event like the Elián González affair to make the vote close enough to flip Florida's Electoral votes to Bush. Because of the Electoral College and Florida being a close swing state, the relatively small number of Cuban Americans in Florida have a way, way more disproportionate say in who becomes president than someone living in California. That is a significant problem.
The reason for this disproportionality has nothing to do with the Electoral College, per se, but with how Florida and other large states apportion the votes of their Electors. It's the 'winner-takes-all' model that produces this problem.
As noted above, passage of the National Popular Vote bill in a sufficient number of states would fix this problem.