View Single Post

Default 

November 7th, 2012, 14:12
I think the biggest problem with the US voting system is that you win all electors in a state if you get majority. The only exceptions are Nebraska and Maine when you get a proportion of the electors dependent upon the vote percentage.

This means the entire election is decided in a few swing states like Ohio or Florida. E. g. it's a waste for the Republicans to do any campaigning in California because the Democrats are likely to win the state 60/40. That means all 55 electors go to the Democrats. If a proportional system had been used then 22 electors would have gone to the Republicans and 33 to the Democrat with the expected result.

The good thing about a proportional system is that ALL states now become important and the candidates must campaign in all states. This means that you can gain electors in any state if you campaign well there, despite being the smallest party.

Obama has 500.000 more votes than Romney at the moment. With a proportional system Obama would be expected to have just above 270 and not over 330 (if he also wins Florida). Then the new President will most likely be the one with the most number of total votes.

I wonder why the Americans don't want a system like they use in Nebraska and Maine used in all states.

Paladin of Tyr
Peter Stauffenberg is offline

Peter Stauffenberg

Peter Stauffenberg's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#94

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 887
Send a message via ICQ to Peter Stauffenberg Send a message via Skype™ to Peter Stauffenberg