Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  proportion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    the only way you can do it by district is if a district had 75% of the state's population, then the district should get 75% of the EV.

    Not even republicans in red states would deem it fair that a candidate who won 60% of the vote lost the election. It would cause anarchy.

    Do what the democrats do in presidential primaries. simply allocate the votes by vote %.

    and give the popular vote winner the two extra votes representing the senate.

    •  That's not how it works (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rmabelis

      Each Congressional district in a state has close to the same population, by law and Supreme Court decree.

      But you can easily arrange things so that there are many districts a Republican wins by 10% and a few districts a Democrat wins by 30%.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:51:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Proportional Issues (0+ / 0-)

      Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.  

      If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers.  If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

      The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

      If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide.  Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation.  The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.  

      A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.  

       It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman.  It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census.  It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).  

      Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote.  In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.  

      A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site