Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What about PA's proposed proportional (0+ / 0-)

    allocation?

    One plan PA is considering would allocate the house based electoral votes proportionally based on the proportion of the state wide vote each candidate gets. The 2 remaining (senatorial based) votes would be given to the state wide winner. The problem with that plan is that it sounds quite reasonable but of course if it were only done in state the Democrats win narrowly and never in the states the Republicans win narrowly it would only benefit the Republicans.  Will it be possible to challenge this on the above grounds as looking at PA in isolation it does actually sound like a fair way to allocate the electors? Perhaps the blatant comment by leaders of the GOP suggesting that legislatures in such states consider such plans might make clear to the courts the agenda here?

    As an aside, I personally think such a plan enacted nationwide might be better than a national popular vote in electing a president. All areas would become potentially important and it would hopefully track the national popular vote better than the current electoral college. However, differences in voting systems leading to differing voter turnouts would not be an issue nor would there be an incentive to run up the score in areas controlled by one party.

    Of course such a plan should not start with PA and other similar Democratically leaning states alone.

    •  It was. But not anymore. They're pushing CD plan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scotths

      But, I do think that the older plan might have a better chance against an EP challenge.  Everyone's statewide vote would count equally under such a scheme, in direct proportion to the actual vote.  So 55% of the voters would have 55% of the Presidential electoral vote allocation.

      To win here, I think you'd have to argue that the intent is still vote dilution, but that assumes that the Constitution REQUIRES the statewide popular vote winner win 100% of the electoral vote.  That's certainly the first-past-the-post system we have here, but other democracies have proportional voting for their legislature/executive and it's not undemocratic.  Just different.

      Politically, of course, while the proportional vote plan helps Republicans, it doesn't outright steal a majority of the vote, so that won't work for them.  It's much easier to conclude, IMO, that an anti-majoritarian scheme that gives a substantial minority unequal voting power (35% of rural voters get to choose 80% of the electoral votes, every time) is unconstitutional and some other plan is needed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site