(why) should states split their electoral votes for president?

Question

maine and nebraska do now. presidential candidates may split those states' electoral votes by district, instead of the 'winner take all' approach found in the other 48 states...
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm


north carolina is considering it for 2008; one argument in favor being that it will make candidates more likely to campaign here if there's a better chance to pick up SOME, if not all, electoral votes.

good idea? bad idea? how about states moving up their primaries to become more significant players in the races? too much tinkering?

north carolina's plan...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070730/cm_huffpost/058365

Answer 1

Great idea --- it actually starts making the electoral college more representative of the votes being cast.

Under an all-or-nothing system, there's no difference between a 51% victory and a 99% victory.

But under a pro-rata (percentage) allocated system, there is a much higher likelihood of the person being elected actually matching the overall popular result.

And primaries are really nothing more than than polls among a particular group to see who that group should sponsor -- they have no more legal meaning than an endorsement by the NRA or Sierra Club. But somehow the two dominant parties have managed to get it so that taxpayers pay for their polls.

Answer 2

It depends upon how split.

In a large state, splitting by districts would mean that most of the districts would not be up for grab. In a state like California, you would have maybe 30 districts that should be safely Democrat in a close election, 18 that should be safely Republican, and 5 that would be swing districts. In Texas, the numbers would be similar but in reverse order (18 solid Republican, 10 solid Democrat, 4 swing). While this would get more attention to the big states, it would only get attention in some parts of the state.

If you split on a proportional basis, you are almost certainly going to have some recounts in every election because the exact vote will actually matter. With winner-take-all, you only need to be certain about who won.

Finally, the problem is that, since the Constitution leaves the selection of the electors to the states, you would need all states to agree. If only the Republican-leaning states went to a split system, it would all but guarantee a Democratic victory. If only the Democratic-leaning states went to a split system, it would all but guarantee a Republican victory.

Answer 3

I think the winner take all causes states to get more attention. If a few states split their votes, what is the point of campaigning in it for a few electoral votes? Candidates will continue to focus on swing states where there is a higher number of electoral votes for grabs. Why target a split state when you can dump resources into Florida and win all 27 electoral votes when you might win only 2/3s of North Carolinas.

Answer 4

I didn't follow the links, but on the surface it makes sense. If you look at the county-level maps from the previous presidential election, almost no state is red or blue -- we're all shades of purple. Common interests at the community level are not necessarily reflected by the cumulative votes at the state level.

(maps: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ )

Answer 5

I like the idea of it. A good example is in Illinois. Southern Illinois is mainly conservative, but because of Chicago, our votes never matter.