Skip to main content

View Diary: NRO: Romney would have won if we had just changed the rules (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bullshit (10+ / 0-)

    What is so hard about the concept of democracy?  One president, one district--the country--majority rules.

    Congressional districts have a smidgeon of basis for existing, in the notion of representation for local concerns.  As long as not gerrymandered brazenly.  Otherwise, it's already bad enough that small and rural states get over-represented in the Senate, already bad enough that the filibuster gives an irresponsible minority veto power.

    •  Proportional voting within states... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostboyjim, blue aardvark, Samer

      ....could possibly work.

      Voting for President by district would produce the same result as we have in the House, where the majority voted for Democrats, but a majority of Republicans were elected.

      National Popular Vote would result in MASSIVE vote rigging in majority-Republican districts unless there were strongly enforced Federal rules about election access.

      Similar problems would exist for proportional voting within states, of course.

      What I'm getting at is that ANY change is problematic without strongly enforced rules allowing everyone eligible to vote & have their vote counted.

      •  Current System Maximizes Opp and Incentives (0+ / 0-)

        The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

        National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression.  One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

        The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes.  The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

        For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

        Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

        •  My concern is... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that in the deep red states, there would be essentially no oversight (as things currently stand), so thousands or even hundreds of thousands of votes could be suppressed or fraudulently counted.

          Florida was a freaking disaster, but in part that was because the Republicans arranged for rules that allowed counting more votes among their constituencies than ours. And ultimately, they won by shutting down the count.

          And that all happened with lots of Democrats involved in the process and the eyes of the nation on it. Imagine what they could do in states with few Democratic officials and not much outside visibility.

          I'm not opposing NPV -- I'm saying that it MUST come with enforced national standards.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site