qlangley Wrote:
Nov 15, 2012 11:09 AM
That depends on the state. The lump-sum allocation makes sense for a moderately sized swing state, say, Colorado (which actually considered a proportional system a few years ago, and sensibly rejected it). Colorado's nine electoral votes are worth fighting for. In a proportional allocation Obama would have got five votes and Romney four. That one extra vote would not be worth the effort. But the lump sum allocation makes no sense for California, Texas or New York. All three were ignored in the presidential election, except when the candidates were passing round the begging bowl. Their votes were not worth fighting for.