California is so populated - should they allow for split electoral vote?

Question

(California Ballot Measure)

Just look up California Split electoral vote and tell me what your thoughts are. Thanks.

Answer 1

OF COURSE! BTW, the only ones against it are the Democrats.

But that's not the proposition. It's to allow for the other candidate to get electoral votes also. Currently it's a "winner takes all" situation so the Democrat candidate gets all the electoral votes. It isn't fair!

Answer 2

I think they should... two states already do that, Nebraska and Maine. I think it'd be great if the whole country did that!

I should note that the two remaining electoral votes in those states go to the overall winner. So, for example, Nebraska get 5 electoral votes... 3 congressional districts may split their vote, 2 republican and 1 democrat... The republican would get the remaining 2 electoral votes because they got the majority of the votes across the whole state. So in this example, Nebraska splits it's electoral votes 4-1.

Answer 3

California is only populated in a very few small places on the map like Los Angeles and San Francisco. The rest of CA is almost uninhabited. Los Angeles and San Fran usually make up the majority of the vote.

It is like some of the elections in Washington State to build sports stadiums for the Mariners and the Seahawks using state funds. All of the counties of Eastern and Western Washington voted against it, but Seattle and Tacoma's population approved the measure since they live RIGHT THERE and will always go to the games, so the measures passed even though the measure was only approved by King and Pierce counties.

But I would agree with Caldude and say "no." The electoral process is defined in the Constitution and it would have to apply to all 50 states before it can be implemented in CA.

Answer 4

they ought to while anybody else does. the certainty of the project is the electoral college would not constantly accurately mirror the final public vote - See 2000. yet a gadget that doesn't permit a state provide a minimum of an important majority of it incredibly is electoral votes to it incredibly is unquestionably winner would not look ideal the two. Small state advocates scream bloody homicide on the advice; yet I nevertheless only will not be able to help yet want the favored vote winner because of the fact the certainly winner being the final gadget. It only seems the main straightforwardly Democratic to me. i think of all you ought to do is inspect the workings of the Senate the previous few years to make certain that small states and minority occasion's rights are already a lot secure - in line with possibility excessively so - There.

Answer 5

No, New York City by itself has more people than some states and they would not allow it to have it's own electoral votes. Same law for everybody, it's just another BS political move like the DeLay Republicans in Texas pulled when they re-drew district lines (zig-zagging in and out of adjacent neighborhoods) to guarrantee a GOP victory in the next election. (Look it up if you don't remember it, it's public record).

Answer 6

It's just a scam for the Republicans to steal votes. Just like them to complain that it's unfair for all the votes to go to one candidate in a Democratic state, but to insist it's no problem when the same thing happens in a Republican state. Unless it's done the same everywhere, it would be inappropriate. The courts would overturn it in a flash.

Answer 7

then why not split the vote in all states? Why not go to a popular election?

I live in Texas...and we are very red Republican state...except for the "oasis of blue" around Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and Houston.... where the greatest number of people live...maybe we should split our votes too...the small town folks with their candidates...and the cities with theirs...

Answer 8

Only if it done in every state. For those of you who aren't aware of this, the Republicans are trying to fix the presidential election by getting California to split their votes and PREVENTING Texas from doing it.

Answer 9

It should apply to ALL the states. From most of the answers already posted here, I can tell that this flawed proposition wouldn't get past anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, unless they wanted ANOTHER flawed election outcome. I hate being treated like I'm stupid!

Answer 10

Its more representative if you allow for a split vote.