Skip to main content

View Diary: Updated: Public Relations and the Electoral College Scam (147 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It depends on how you split it. (5+ / 0-)

    If you do it the way Pennsylvania proposes, it's more democratic -- true proportional allotment. In fact, we should that in the Presidential and Congressional elections -- proportional allotment based on a statewide count -- instead of the current system which incentivizes gerrymandered districts and is inherently undemocratic.

    On the other hand, what Virginia is proposing is very undemocratic, because it relies on an already gerrymandered map. Moreover, the Virginia bill compounds this by proposing to allot the extra 2 EVs to the candidate who wins the most districts -- districts which are already divided in a rigged manner.

    I suspect that a constitutional challenge to the Virginia proposal would succeed -- not because of the EV split idea but because those two Senatorial EVs are not being allotted to the statewide winner. They are clearly tilting the playing field so that some votes count more than others. That should be a violation of equal protection rights.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:20:34 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The problem is where you do it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FischFry
      If you do it the way Pennsylvania proposes, it's more democratic -- true proportional allotment. In fact, we should that in the Presidential and Congressional elections -- proportional allotment based on a statewide count -- instead of the current system which incentivizes gerrymandered districts and is inherently undemocratic.
      This proposal worries me because it sounds reasonable. The district by district approach doesn't sound reasonable as it would give (in the case of PA, OH, MI and WI) more votes to the candidate that lost the state. However, this proportional allocation sounds like a reasonable solution as the state would more closely match its vote count. If enacted nationwide it could work reasonably well, perhaps more closely tracking the national popular vote while at the same time allowing states to have differing voting systems without the impact that would have on a national popular vote.

      The problem is that they wish to enact such a scheme only on states that Obama won, thus diluting his vote in a "reasonable" sounding way. If states that are likely to be won narrowly by the Republican such as  MO and NC also consider such a plan then perhaps the system would lead to reasonable results.

      Proportional allocation in states the Democrats won narrowly is very dangerous as it puts Democrats at a significant disadvantage while simultaneously sounding reasonable.

      •  Right. It would need to be nationwide to be fair (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scotths

        I guess I should have made it clear in my comment that I wasn't endorsing Pennsylvania's idea for Pennsylvania. For a national election depending on how states allot electors, it is not fair for different states to have different rules. We need to have a nationwide system, notwithstanding the freedom the Constitution purports to give each state.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:07:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site