4 ms·

Most things that could be done suffer from the problem that they require the people who currently have power to disadvantage themselves. Proportional allocatio

by khuey 7y ago

Most things that could be done suffer from the problem that they require the people who currently have power to disadvantage themselves. Proportional allocation of electoral votes might be a useful reform (though it could easily be gamed, if states were to follow Congressional District boundaries you could gerrymander the Presidency) but if Texas and Florida enact it while California or New York do not (or vice versa) it's a massive gift to the Democrats (or Republicans). Both the UK and Canada have recently failed to deliver proportional representation despite explicit campaign promises because of this.

zamfi 7y ago
No realistic scenario involves only some states doing this while others don’t, though it’s worth pointing out that Maine and Nebraska are not winner-take-all. You may find the national interstate popular vote compact interesting. [1] Basically each state in the compact pledges their delegates to the national vote winner, but only once enough states to guarantee the presidency have agreed to do so. That said, currently it seems that any “popular vote” measure that takes away power from small states (like this one, or changing the senate or house) would disadvantage republicans, so it’s probably a nonstarter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
- AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
  Probably illegal without congessional approval
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  > That said, currently it seems that any “popular vote” measure that takes away power from small states (like this one, or changing the senate or house) would disadvantage republicans, so it’s probably a nonstarter. This isn't actually true, for a couple reasons: 1. Small states are already ignored in Presidential elections because most of them are solidly red or blue (see [0] and note how many small states have no visits at all). Pretty much the only small state that swings in elections is New Hampshire, so I suppose New Hampshire loses a bit by transition to a popular vote, but no other state really does. I'm prepared to bite that bullet. 2. Right now there are tons of suburban and rural Republicans in California and New York whose votes essentially don't count at all in the current system, but would in a popular vote. People who have studied the potential effects of abandoning the Electoral College have found that it doesn't actually provide an unbalanced benefit to either party, though I concede that as long as Republicans think it would hurt Republicans, it won't happen. [0]: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016
  - khuey 7y ago
    It would be a much different debate if Kerry had won Ohio (and thus won the Presidency without winning the popular vote) in 2004 but at the moment the Electoral College has given Republicans two of the last four elections where they lost the popular vote so I don't think it's just perception that it would hurt them.
arethuza 7y ago
The UK had a Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 that voted strongly for the current system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_United_Kin... Mind you - we do have proportional representation for the Scottish Government and although it is rumoured that this was part of a design to ensure that the wrong party didn't get power the people of Scotland keep voting for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament#Elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament#Elections
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- khuey 7y ago
  Thanks, I remembered it was part of the Tory/Lib Dem Coalition Agreement and that it didn't happen but I didn't realize there was a referendum that went down in flames.

by khuey 7y ago

zamfi 7y ago

No realistic scenario involves only some states doing this while others don’t, though it’s worth pointing out that Maine and Nebraska are not winner-take-all. You may find the national interstate popular vote compact interesting. [1] Basically each state in the compact pledges their delegates to the national vote winner, but only once enough states to guarantee the presidency have agreed to do so. That said, currently it seems that any “popular vote” measure that takes away power from small states (like this one, or changing the senate or house) would disadvantage republicans, so it’s probably a nonstarter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
Probably illegal without congessional approval
Analemma_ 7y ago
> That said, currently it seems that any “popular vote” measure that takes away power from small states (like this one, or changing the senate or house) would disadvantage republicans, so it’s probably a nonstarter. This isn't actually true, for a couple reasons: 1. Small states are already ignored in Presidential elections because most of them are solidly red or blue (see [0] and note how many small states have no visits at all). Pretty much the only small state that swings in elections is New Hampshire, so I suppose New Hampshire loses a bit by transition to a popular vote, but no other state really does. I'm prepared to bite that bullet. 2. Right now there are tons of suburban and rural Republicans in California and New York whose votes essentially don't count at all in the current system, but would in a popular vote. People who have studied the potential effects of abandoning the Electoral College have found that it doesn't actually provide an unbalanced benefit to either party, though I concede that as long as Republicans think it would hurt Republicans, it won't happen. [0]: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016
- khuey 7y ago
  It would be a much different debate if Kerry had won Ohio (and thus won the Presidency without winning the popular vote) in 2004 but at the moment the Electoral College has given Republicans two of the last four elections where they lost the popular vote so I don't think it's just perception that it would hurt them.

arethuza 7y ago

The UK had a Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 that voted strongly for the current system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_United_Kin... Mind you - we do have proportional representation for the Scottish Government and although it is rumoured that this was part of a design to ensure that the wrong party didn't get power the people of Scotland keep voting for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament#Elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament#Elections

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
khuey 7y ago
Thanks, I remembered it was part of the Tory/Lib Dem Coalition Agreement and that it didn't happen but I didn't realize there was a referendum that went down in flames.