Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (5886)	1/11/2008 10:17:34 AM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Two states allow splitting electoral college votes. Maine and Nebraska. If CA moves to join them, more power to them. The problem with allowing the proportional allocation of electoral votes is in assigning he people who are the Presidential Electors. The state would have to be careful in how it defines it's electors. As far as what you propose? I have to read more. In 2000, I think Bush would have gotten 19 of the CA 54 votes. That could have helped him. On the surface adopting this method seems more representative and largely acceptable. The Electors would have to be chosen by the District they represent and would have to be trustworthy enough to vote the way that district voted. No lone rangers or politcal operatives allowed within the ranks. Keep in mind that by splitting the electoral votes, some states may become less important than when a state uses winner take all. If a state like IL, which has a large Dem concentration in an otherwise Repub state, adopts this plan their 21 votes will probably always be split Chicago vs rest of the state. So, Il is no longer 21 Dem votes, but only the handful represented by Chi-town.