Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541166
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Not precisely" can have such a big margin, that it can be considered broken. Making it more democratic will also force candidates to pay attention to all states in general, rather than focusing on few selected "swing" ones, disregarding anything else.
This would have no impact on which party would win the majority per State. Demographics play a large role and several States are simply too far in favor of one party or the other for the minority to gain enough ground to win that State. Example - Kansas will not elect a democrat and California will not elect a republican, regardless of attempts to change that.
Swing States (I live in one and I am knee deep in political propaganda) are politically split down the middle more or less and have more independent voters making them critical in deciding Presidential elections because they can be persuaded.





Member since:
2009-04-08
I think that this 'disproportion' due to most states taking a 'winner-take-all' method may not reflect the popular vote precisely but it works fine. In democracy, the majority rules and if the majority of a State goes one way or the other why is it broken when the electoral votes all get cast for the winner in that State? That is, in effect, majority rule.