Why aren't electoral votes given proportionately?

Question

Instead of giving all of a state's electoral votes to the winner of the state's election, why don't they divide them up amongst the voted-for candidates?
For example, if a state has 10 delegates, candidate A wins 40% of the vote, B 35%, C 20%, and D 5%, why not give 6 electoral votes to candidate A, 3 to B, 2 to C, and 1 to D?

They would have to rework the number of delegates each state gets of course, but I think it would more accurately reflect the popular votes and get rid of the enormous disadvantage that non-republican/non-democrat candidates have.

Answer 1

We can do what you suggest, but it is up to each respective state legislature to do it. You could campaign for your state legislature to adopt the approach you are referring to.



As you may know, right now there are two states in which it is law to automatically split the electoral college vote, based on each district in the state, and one of those two, Nebraska, DID allocate 1 vote to Obama, even though McCain won the whole state. Obama won a bare majority in one of the three districts of Nebraska, which is why he got one vote. If my original home state, Missouri, had a system like that in place in 2008, then three of the eleven electoral college votes would have been given to Obama instead of all eleven for McCain. If California had that system, eleven EC votes would have gone to McCain instead of all 55 for Obama. A system like that is apparently not what you're suggesting, though.

Answer 2

That's the way that the individual states have decided to allocate their electoral votes. However, there is a move to allocate them proportionally, but it will depend on enough states doing this to make it fair. After all, if Texas and Florida sticks to winner takes all and California uses a proportionate system, it wouldn't be fair. Personally, I have long supported that the electoral votes determined by number of representatives be awarded proportionally, and the final 2 given to the winner of the state.

Answer 3

Because that would be a "POPULAR" vote. The United States is not set up to elect it's president by a popular vote. The electoral process is, by definition, different and separate from what's called the popular vote.



The electoral method was introduced in order to balance the rights of the STATES with those of the population - so that small states with low population didn't always find themselves being walked over by larger states with larger populations. : )

Answer 4

It's up to each state how to dish those out, because states under the Constitution have plenary power .

Answer 5

Because that's the way the Constitution was written.