Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 12:45:33 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Electoral Reform
| | | |-+  Proportional Method
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Proportional Method  (Read 9806 times)
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4421
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« on: December 11, 2006, 03:16:29 am »
Ignore

IMO the proportional method should be used in states with 10 or more electoral votes.  Would it be Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill making this change or would it require an amendment?  Also, would either party support such a measure?  It seems more likely to me to have more Republican support simply because Republicans win most of the small states and don't depend as heavily on large ones like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.
Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2006, 10:58:37 am »
Ignore

IMO the proportional method should be used in states with 10 or more electoral votes.  Would it be Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill making this change or would it require an amendment?
This would require an amendment. And why 10?
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2006, 11:09:24 am »
Ignore

IMO the proportional method should be used in states with 10 or more electoral votes.  Would it be Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill making this change or would it require an amendment?
This would require an amendment. And why 10?

^^^

You could easily do it with all states
Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2006, 11:25:33 am »
Ignore

In 2004 Bush would have netted a cool 17 EV's gain from this method (there's no difference between Hare-Niemeyer and D'Hondt).

AZ Bush 6 Kerry 4
CA Kerry 30 Bush 25
FL Bush 14 Kerry 13
GA Bush 9 Kerry 6
IL Kerry 12 Bush 9
IN Bush 6 Kerry 4
MD Kerry 6 Bush 4
MA Kerry 8 Bush 4
MI Kerry 9 Bush 8
MO Bush 6 Kerry 5
NJ Kerry 8 Bush 7
NY Kerry 18 Bush 13
NC Bush 8 Kerry 7
OH Bush 10 Kerry 10
PA Kerry 11 Bush 10
TN Bush 6 Kerry 5
TX Bush 21 Kerry 13
VA Bush 7 Kerry 6
WA Kerry 6 Bush 5
WI Kerry 5 Bush 5
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Passing Through a Screen Door
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 71853
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2006, 12:02:07 pm »
Ignore

Actually, it wouldn't require an amendment, each state could just pass the law to assign their electors that way themselves, much like Colorado considered doing.
Logged

Victory over Inks dedicated in memory.


01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11193
Ireland, Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2006, 01:04:11 pm »
Ignore

A better alternative would be to divide the 'house' EVs proportionally and then add the two 'senate' votes to whoever wins the state. (of course, this wouldn't be perfect in small states.)

Logged



Quote from: DarqWolff
I'm kind of tired of citing these examples and I'm guessing you're getting tired of reading them... In closing, the people who know me in real life all respect me, as do a great many people in the Reddit brony community

Quote
Keith R Laws ‏@Keith_Laws  Feb 4
As I have noted before 'paradigm shift' is an anagram of 'grasp dim faith'
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4421
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2006, 04:02:22 pm »
Ignore

A better alternative would be to divide the 'house' EVs proportionally and then add the two 'senate' votes to whoever wins the state. (of course, this wouldn't be perfect in small states.)



That why I chose 10 as the cutoff.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31127


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2006, 04:09:10 pm »
Ignore

The small states already have too much power with the electoral college, and this would give them even more power.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27773
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2006, 04:11:00 pm »
Ignore

Not only does it not require an amendment, Congress could mandate a proportional system, just as it has mandated the use of single member districts and no at-Large seats.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2006, 10:00:53 am »
Ignore

Not only does it not require an amendment, Congress could mandate a proportional system, just as it has mandated the use of single member districts and no at-Large seats.
I thought that was the SC? My mistake, then.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27773
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2006, 02:35:57 pm »
Ignore

Not only does it not require an amendment, Congress could mandate a proportional system, just as it has mandated the use of single member districts and no at-Large seats.
I thought that was the SC? My mistake, then.

The Supreme Court has put its own fingers into the apportionment process, and it has been far readier to find fault with schemes that include multiple member districts or at-large seats, but it hasn't made such schemes automatically beyond the pale.  Congress likely went to a mandate for single member districts so as to cut down on redistricting lawsuits, but it would be possible, especially if we got a court that kept out of redistricting issues, to go back to something other than single member districts being used without having to overturn any precedents or amend the constitution.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5710
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2007, 01:43:43 pm »
Ignore

Not only does it not require an amendment, Congress could mandate a proportional system, just as it has mandated the use of single member districts and no at-Large seats.
Congress has explicit authority with regard to the time, place, and manner of electing members of Congress.  They have required election from single member districts.  The USSC has required a extreme level of population equality.

Congress only has the authority to set the date that presidential electors are chosen and when they cast their votes.  An exception is for the electors for the District of Columbia where they act as the equivalent of a state legislature.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines