top | item 27329913

(no title)

gautamnarula | 4 years ago

Add that to the ever-growing list of reasons to get rid of the Electoral College.

discuss

order

amscanne|4 years ago

I’m sure this is a general comment on the electoral college, but it’s always bothered me that criticisms of the electoral college (generally made by Democrats, since they are negatively affected at the national level) tend to completely ignore the fact that a huge portion of people are disenfranchised in nearly all states. I imagine that Republican voters in California feel just as frustrated about their electoral votes going blue as Democratic voters in California are about the relative value of their electoral votes (which they get to control completely).

The focus is on the national outcome so much, that actually enfranchising voters is seen as a problem. And unlikely other ways of suppressing and disenfranchising voters, it’s perfectly fine to discuss and strategize around this.

Personally, I’d much rather see states send proportional electoral votes than a national popular vote. Perhaps that can fix the problem here? Give the counties to Idaho, but on the condition that both Oregon and Idaho assign electoral Nebraska-style — everyone is enfranchised, and you have an outcome (from those states at least) that is practically guaranteed to be representative.

bobthepanda|4 years ago

The electoral college was not originally winners take all.

The problem is that going proportional only works out for the states if everyone is doing it, otherwise a massive winner takes all state is that much more important to swing.