Cali: 55 electors
Texas: 38 electors

win 60% in cali, you win 55 electors
60% of 55 is about 33.

win only 20% in Texas, you win 0 electors
20% of 38 is about 8.

IF you win 60% in cali, but only 20% in texas, you get 55 electors and win 55 vs 38. That is how it currently works. We are saying it shouldn't. instead winning 60% in cali should get you 33 electors, and winning 20% in texas wins you 8. That leaves you with 41 electors. 41 to 54.

so the argument is not "it's stupid", that is the conclusion. the argument is that the current system makes votes in non-swing states worthless because they do not have any impact on the outcome of the election.

the change means the percent you win in each state matters more than just winning the state itself.

No vote is worthless so long as each state's election counts every vote.

except if you voted in call, you might as well not have voted

same in texas even in that example

what impact on the outcome of the election did the votes for trump in california have then?

what would have changed if every single republican voter had stayed home?

They were counted directly in California's election.

tell me, in the example above, that the change didn't make each vote in each state more valuable than before?

You can ask that of any voting minority after any election.

only if you have a winner takes all system

so what is your problem with making your individual vote more valuable?

and yes, the presidential election is winner takes all. my point is that the winner takes all part comes too early.

No state is required to have a winner-take-all election for its electors. Most do simply because the electoral vote is pro forma after the popular vote for the POTUS candidates themselves.

yes

and the argument is they shouldn't

not that they can't

Shouldn't what?

shouldn't do winner takes all

as it devalues the individuals vote

and makes the election less representative of the nation

So they should put the electors on the ballot instead of the POTUS candidates?

thats an idea.

some places do that i think

but still, if there are no electors that would vote your way, what would that do?

I don't know how many states did that even in the early days of the US.

there is a bit of a problem i suppose in that electors are bound to vote for the winner of the popular vote or face fines, but they do so on an individual level

basically they should assign the electors based on the percentage of the popular vote inside of the state, not give the person with .5% more votes all of the electors.

I suppose you can write in an elector then.

meaning its not like they tell each elector "here is who you vote for"

which is what this would require changing

not really

yes, because how does each elector know who the other voted to make sure things get spread based off percent

each elector, as i understand it, is an individual

i like nebraska and maine's system

Winner-take-all makes perfect sense when the voters only get to vote for 1 President.

i don;t think they know who who the others vote for

@devpav as i demonstrated above, winner takes all can change the election drastically

Of course every election is sensitive to the specific rules of the election. You don't have to demonstrate that.

candidates give a list of 55 (or whatever the number of electors for the state is) people for the state that they want as electors, electors get in from top to bottom of that list according to the percentage of votes their candidate got. after that proceed the same way you do now.