Quote Originally Posted by oinco View Post
In a winner-take-all EC, CA and TX especially, do not potentially represent (factually) voters preference-Example: if say 51% of the vote goes one way....all the weight of those states "rounds" up to 100% instantly instead of carrying that 51% to the final tally alone.

so if 51% x 55 EC votes for CA were carried that would equal 28/55ths not 55/55ths?? so 27 EC votes don't matter now-and in fact their intention has been reversed?


If the EC was used as in Maine where it is NOT a winner-take-all vote and was majority rule-I could be more at ease with it currently.
So, if the proponents say the EC is to protect smaller states-to me that is entirely different than protecting an individuals right to a vote that matters?
What am I missing?

The Constitution gives each state the right to determine the selection of its electors. Both Maine and Nebraska use a system where the electoral votes in a congressional district are given to the winner of that district. This is a ploy by democrats to erode republican electoral votes. The other ploy that democrats want is that all the electoral votes go to the candidate with the most popular vote. This will be repealed when a republican gets the popular vote and the democrat leaning state has to vote for a republican. I predict this will happen in 2012 if we still have a free election.

I have run models in a spreadsheet looking at the Maine methodology and compared to the winner-take-all method and the elections are usually the same outcome. However, when there is a 3rd party candidate, the winner does not get a clear victory and the election goes to the House of Representatives. The election of Clinton would not have happened using this Maine method. In both cases the Republican would have won.