faust9
- 690
- 2
loseyourname said:I should note that my problem isn't with the electoral college per se; it is with the winner-take-all system of apportioning electoral votes. The reason being that for every presidential election I have been old enough to participate in, the winner of California was never in anything close to doubt and it frankly made no difference whatsoever who I voted for or whether or not I even voted. A system that disempowers voters in highly partisan states and places so much emphasis on the 'swing-states' is a bad system. I wouldn't mind the college so much if they would just apportion votes according to the percentages won, instead of doing it winner-take-all.
This idea of a winner take all system is not really true. There have been electoral voters who have defied the norm and cast a vote for the other guy. The system works out the way it does because the party of the candidate who wins the state chooses the electoral voters who then choose to vote with the party or their conscience---the party usually wins. A few states do have all-or-nothing laws but many many legal analysists feel these laws are unconstitutional; however, one needs standing to sue before challanging these laws and as of yet we have not seen a defector (last defector was in the 60's IIRC) run up against one of these laws.
The electoral voters still have the right to vote their conscience though.