Ie: If 65 percent voted republican and 35 percent voted democrat then 7 of the electorates would be instructed to vote for the R candidate and 3 for the Dem candidate
Should Missouri's electoral votes be split by the popular vote of the State?
- Thread starter Mofan79
- Start date
How about California does it first and we will see how it works...
So if the question was abolish the Electoral college altogether would you be for it or against it, and why? @Cheetah King
Against abolishing it. I’m not necessarily against the splitting of a states electoral votes if it was done in ALL states.
I like some decentralization of power split across 50 states. I think the house and senate set up is actually brilliant. In one chamber of the legislature Montana has as much say as Texas. In another only a fraction as much of a say.
I agree with what you said about he house and senate though I contend D.C. and Puerto Rico should be granted state hood to make the senate fair. What is the difference between abolishing the electorate and splitting state votes though?
No difference if fractions of electoral votes are used. If divided along whole numbers except in smallest states. A state with 4 votes will almost always be 2-2 so after that I tend to be against splitting them as well.
I appreciate you having a discussion with me about it. Usually when I look at the pc board I don't see it like this I usually see it as your wrong! no you are wrong!
But you are wrong Mofan. 
Just kidding.
Whatever we decide to do with the electoral vote, every state needs to be on board. I agree with what you say about the house and senate.
Right now though it's kind of the wild west. Some states are splitting electors, some are choosing based on congressional districts some are choosing based on the popular vote.
The whole thing is chaos, and the idea of an electoral college that doesn't even represent what they are legally bound to do is frightening. (I know that isn't where you are going with the discussion, but I am most worried about that.) The talk of choosing electors based on affiliation even if the state votes differently.
Just kidding.Whatever we decide to do with the electoral vote, every state needs to be on board. I agree with what you say about the house and senate.
Right now though it's kind of the wild west. Some states are splitting electors, some are choosing based on congressional districts some are choosing based on the popular vote.
The whole thing is chaos, and the idea of an electoral college that doesn't even represent what they are legally bound to do is frightening. (I know that isn't where you are going with the discussion, but I am most worried about that.) The talk of choosing electors based on affiliation even if the state votes differently.
I think the way to go about changing it is to get it passed in a couple republican heavy states then they will want the other states to follow as typically they enjoy an advantage through the electoral college. If it disappeared I believe they would support a change and the democrats would go along with it. While in a perfect world all states would change simultaneously I think it is more likely an amendment will pass through the referendum process in a state like Missouri and be voted on in the ballot as opposed to a legislature making the changeBut you are wrong Mofan.
Whatever we decide to do with the electoral vote, every state needs to be on board. I agree with what you say about the house and senate.
Right now though it's kind of the wild west. Some states are splitting electors, some are choosing based on congressional districts some are choosing based on the popular vote.
The whole thing is chaos, and the idea of an electoral college that doesn't even represent what they are legally bound to do is frightening. (I know that isn't where you are going with the discussion, but I am most worried about that.) The talk of choosing electors based on affiliation even if the state votes differently.
