3 ms·
The point OP made was that it's First Past The Post that's the problem, not the electoral college itself. And you arrived at the same conclusion, just using dif
by henrikschroder 14y ago
The point OP made was that it's First Past The Post that's the problem, not the electoral college itself. And you arrived at the same conclusion, just using different words.
Another bonus of getting rid of FPTP is that there would be no "swing states" that get 90% of the campaign activity, all states would suddenly be roughly equally important.
- gjm11 14y agocletus is proposing that individual states' elections switch from FPTP to AV or a similar system. This would make it possible to vote for "minor" candidates while still having an impact of which of the "major" candidates gets in, but it would not, even a little tiny bit, stop the election being decided by the results in a small number of swing states. It would certainly not mean that "all states would suddenly be roughly equally important". The solution downandout is proposing is not at all like the solution cletus is proposing; the two did not arrive at "the same conclusion" and the difference between them is not only one of words.