3 ms·
A nationwide recount (or multiple statewide recounts) is bigger and more complicated than a single statewide recount. How is that not reasonable grounds for opp
by tunesmith 10y ago
A nationwide recount (or multiple statewide recounts) is bigger and more complicated than a single statewide recount. How is that not reasonable grounds for opposing NPV?
It is worth considering that if the size of the House had been permitted to grow as originally intended, then the difference between the NPV and the EC basically disappears. For instance, I believe that Gore would have won in 2000 had the House been double or triple in size (I forget exactly where, but somewhere around there). So that's a point in favor of the popular vote.
- mikeash 10y agoGrowing the House might have solved 2000 but it doesn't solve the overall problem, which is that a few states are hugely elevated in importance because they're the only ones that might realistically go either way. Swinging 5% of voters in Ohio is vastly more valuable than swinging 5% of voters in California, even though California has 3x more people. A larger House wouldn't change that.
- lisper 10y agoIt's actually a theorem that it is not possible to devise an apportionment scheme that does not have perverse outcomes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_paradox http://study.com/academy/lesson/balanski-youngs-impossibility-theorem-political-apportionment.html http://study.com/academy/lesson/balanski-youngs-impossibilit...