Skip to main content

View Diary: What nobody is addressing about the Electoral Vote-rigging scheme (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As bad as the EC is, (6+ / 0-)

    the approach of using statewide popular vote to grant 100% of the electors seems to work reasonably well in practice.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but in recent history the EC result has usually tracked with the national popular vote, i.e. the guy who gets the plurality or majority usually also wins the EC.  And even when it flips (e.g. 2000) it's usually at least pretty close.

    Yes it does result in imbalances where certain states get overlooked or taken for granted, but compared to the abomination that the RNC is pushing of unevenly distributed gerrymandered states and winner-take-all states, the status quo is far better, at least until we get a national popular vote (not holding my breath).

    There is simply no logical justification for gerrymandering national offices.  It may be unavoidable in the House, because of the need to associate each Representative with a specific group of citizens, and the need to redraw those maps periodically (and all the alternative ways of doing this have their flaws as well).  But for Presidential elections, the Congressional district concept has no meaning.  It will only serve to further Balkanize the states and weaken the Federal government, which is exactly what the plutocrats want.

    •  The winner of the popular vote usually wins EC yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      I wouldn't say it has tracked the same historically, if instead of looking at the winner and loser, we look at the percentage.

      For instance, Reagen won only 50% and 58% of the popular vote, but 90% and 97% of the Electoral College. That's very odd to me.

      With the system we have, there is only outcry if the winner wins on just the EC alone, and without the popular vote.

      •  That's a bit of a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax

        distinction without a difference though.  Winning with 97% of the EVs doesn't get you anything more than winning by 1 EV, other than bragging rights about mandates which IMHO have dubious political value (especially lately).  I agree it "feels weird", and certainly in theory there are a lot of ways it can fail spectacularly, but like I said, in practice the "right" person usually wins.

        Yes it's an antiquated, bad system with almost no Constitutional requirements on how electors are determined.  This new system is worse IMHO.  There are other options.  I do not accept this false dichotomy the GOP is pushing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site