3 ms·

What Ericson2314 is referring to is the coordination + prisoner's dilemma problem. It appears that if every state enacted this at the same time, almost everyon

What Ericson2314 is referring to is the coordination + prisoner's dilemma problem. It appears that if every state enacted this at the same time, almost everyone would be better off. That being said, any state that is strongly one party or the other is incentivized not to do this. California's legislature can choose between giving a high percentage (63.48%[1] in 2020) or 100% of it's electoral votes to the democratic candidate. Alabama's legislature can choose between giving a high percentage (62.03%[2] in 2020) or 100% of it's electoral votes to the republican candidate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

Ericson2314 5y ago
That is very true. This would best happen if the level of government above the elections in question requires they all work the same way. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Representation_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Representation_Act_(Unite... would require that all the house districts go SVT PR at once. Likewise, a state could reform all their state legislature districts at once. I can't wave any magic wand for gridlock at that level, but that bypasses the coordination failure by not requiring coordinated steps at all.