4 ms·
That's not an argument against the Electoral College per se, but rather an argument against letting states allocate all of their Electoral College votes to the
by vonmoltke 7y ago
That's not an argument against the Electoral College per se, but rather an argument against letting states allocate all of their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote. This particular problem could be solved by forcing all states to apportion their Electoral College votes based on the distribution of the popular vote.
- wyldfire 7y agoIIRC this behavior is per-state and some (Maine or NH maybe?) do just that.
- khuey 7y agoMaine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes on a per-Congressional district basis. But because Congressional districts can be heavily gerrymandered this is not a substitute for a truly proportional allocation scheme.
- pfisch 7y ago> This particular problem could be solved by forcing all states to apportion their Electoral College votes based on the distribution of the popular vote. That is not a realistic proposal. Political gridlock will never allow a change like this. Doing it state by state is even worse because it just creates a system where dems try to do it to only red states and the GOP tries to do it to only blue states. It would just further skew the outcomes away from a democratic result.
- zhoujianfu 7y agoThis is exactly what the article is about, and 16 states with 194 votes have already done it. It will eventually pass 270 because most states (all non-swing states) have a lot to gain from it.
- pfisch 7y agoI'm pretty sure the poster I responded to was talking about doing this on a per state basis. Not the national popular vote.
- zhoujianfu 7y agoThat’s exactly what the NPVIC is trying for... they’re not abolishing the electoral college, just making an agreement that 270+ of them will vote for whomever wins the entire nation’s popular vote.