3 ms·
There are two states that don't go winner-take-all with their electors, Maine and Nebraska[1]. This way, at least if different districts vote wildly differentl
by douche 10y ago
There are two states that don't go winner-take-all with their electors, Maine and Nebraska[1]. This way, at least if different districts vote wildly differently, that would get reflected in the electoral college.
Wider use of this system would probably drive the pundits and talking heads insane, because then that calculus for getting to 270 votes would become much more complicated.
[1] http://www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska http://www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska
- mountaineer22 10y agoI agree with this. The calculus should not be easy to solve.
- WildUtah 10y agoNote that if every state used the Maine/Nebraska system, Trump would be guaranteed to win next week. There would not be another Democratic president for many years at least. Obama, for instance, would not have won in 2008 or 2012.
- douche 10y agoIs that because of deliberate gerrymandering, or are Democratic districts so overwhelmingly Democratic that their differentials in their districts currently carry the rest of the state? I.e. an urban district votes 95-5 Democratic, while the rural district votes 55-45 Republican, so under the winner-take-all, both electors go Democrat, vs the other system would be 1-1?
- WildUtah 10y agoIt's mostly a matter of deliberate gerrymandering. In years like 2012 and soon 2016, a large majority of voters pick a Democrat for Congress. In order to keep control of the body, Republicans have arranged the districts so that they are guaranteed to keep a majority regardless of any plausible scenario of how the people may vote.