3 ms·

The problem with allocating the state's electoral college votes proportionally is that there's no advantage in doing so on a state-by-state level. For each ind

The problem with allocating the state's electoral college votes proportionally is that there's no advantage in doing so on a state-by-state level. For each individual state, the result is having a much smaller influence on the election overall. There's a first-mover problem, where it would result in a better end state, but any state that makes this allocation is shooting themselves in the foot. Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0]. All states in the compact give the entirety of their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote on the national level, but only once the NPVIC has sufficient electoral votes to be the deciding factor. This way, the electoral college still exists, doesn't require a constitutional amendment to change, but effectively becomes a rubber stamp. Because it only takes effect once the NPVIC controls the majority of electoral college votes, it avoids the first-mover effect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

trelane 4y ago
> For each individual state, the result is having a much smaller influence on the election overall So do it in small groups. You just have to convince a comparable set of red and blue states, and it'll be easier to convince them that you'll both win some and lose some than to convince the red states to make themselves irrelevant. Such is the nature of compromise--find common ground, both sides win and lose a little. Of course, if you solely care about the fact some votes count less than others--which was the underlying argument against the EC--then just having your state allocate proportionally improves the lives of your fellow citizens now, and it's for the greater good. > Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0] This is just a constitutional amendment with less steps and slightly lower threshold. It's not coincidence that blue states are in it and not red. The red states will not sign on to this because it would make them irrelevant. A blue state would not allocate their EC votes proportional to their state results because it would reduce the blue party's influence, even though it would be fairer to their citizens.

trelane 4y ago

> For each individual state, the result is having a much smaller influence on the election overall So do it in small groups. You just have to convince a comparable set of red and blue states, and it'll be easier to convince them that you'll both win some and lose some than to convince the red states to make themselves irrelevant. Such is the nature of compromise--find common ground, both sides win and lose a little. Of course, if you solely care about the fact some votes count less than others--which was the underlying argument against the EC--then just having your state allocate proportionally improves the lives of your fellow citizens now, and it's for the greater good. > Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0] This is just a constitutional amendment with less steps and slightly lower threshold. It's not coincidence that blue states are in it and not red. The red states will not sign on to this because it would make them irrelevant. A blue state would not allocate their EC votes proportional to their state results because it would reduce the blue party's influence, even though it would be fairer to their citizens.