Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Split-EV is simply less democratic (12+ / 0-)

    than winner-take-all.

    At the bottom of my related post I provide some numbers on the 2012 elections. Even though Obama won 51% of the popular vote, he would only have won 46% if the split electoral vote system were in place in all the states and the 2 at large awarded to whoever won the most districts, as per the proposed GOP Virginia plan.

    Split-EV makes it far more likely to win the Electoral College without winning the popular vote.
    In general, the American public appears to disapprove of a candidate winning the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. There is less fuss when the Electoral Vote proportional far outweighs the popular vote proportion, so long as it agrees with the idea that the true winner gets the Electoral Votes. The 2000 election as an example.

    In this sense, I think the American public sees the Electoral Vote as a kind of symbolic reward for the winner of the popular vote; people who win by using the Electoral Vote alone face far more public backlash.

    •  I agree with everything you write (11+ / 0-)

      here and in your diary.  This is a moment fraught with great peril.  But every danger has the possibility of a great victory, too.  Let's hope we get ahead of this.

    •  What it does is get rid of ONE PERSON ONE VOTE (9+ / 0-)

      concept.  Thus it is really about WHERE you voted rather than IF you voted.

      President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

      by Drdemocrat on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:57:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I could well pick up (0+ / 0-)

        my blue self and plant it in a red county.  I wouldn't be surprised if this gamesmanship were to result in massive relocation efforts throughout the country.  (That could only benefit the Democrats, I think.)

      •  that fully applies to the current system as well (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DCDemocrat, Quicklund

        So split EV is not getting rid of the concept.  The concept is already well established with the EV system.  A voter in Wisconsin has more influence on the outcome of the race than a voter in California.  Yes, it's a very small value, but it's measurable and it is real.

    •  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