4 ms·
Wouldn't this lead to a TON of games? Now if you're a Democrat in Nebraska, or a Republican in California, it's in your best interest NOT to vote. That way the
by yuliyp 11y ago
Wouldn't this lead to a TON of games? Now if you're a Democrat in Nebraska, or a Republican in California, it's in your best interest NOT to vote. That way the winner-takes-all majority in your state would get less of an impact. On the other hand, all of the Democrats in California and Republicans in Nebraska would definitely want to show up to the polls.
Basically if you think your party will win, you want to show up. If your party will lose, you want to skip. There are basically 3 equilibria: 100% of either party votes and 0% of the other one, or exactly 50/50 with the outcome unknown to anyone.
- wodenokoto 11y agoWhich is why the votes ought to be pooled across states, so all the Republican votes in California don't get lost, just because the state majority ended up voting Democratic.
- yuliyp 11y agoIf you're pooling votes across the states then you don't exactly have an eloctoral college any more, and you get the turnout-proportional results anyway.
- mvymvy 11y agoThe National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com