On paper I agree, but then I think about how complex it would be in practice that I start to dislike it. If we're going to change the system it should be to make it a straight up national popular vote.
The issue with per-state proportionality is that EVs represent individual voters in the EC, so fractional EVs do not exist. Each state wou…
On paper I agree, but then I think about how complex it would be in practice that I start to dislike it. If we're going to change the system it should be to make it a straight up national popular vote.
The issue with per-state proportionality is that EVs represent individual voters in the EC, so fractional EVs do not exist. Each state would instead have EV thresholds that determine how the EVs are allocated. Depending on how those allocations work out, it could end up even less democratic than the current system. It does have the potential to be better, too, but it's a lot of change for minimal upside even if it does work well.
The risk/reward ratio is bad, and the risk/reward/difficulty is even worse. The difficulty of achieving a national popular vote is arguably lower while having far greater reward for the country.
I agree! And I meant the experiment as a transition to straight-up national popular vote.
The problem now is that voters in more than 40 states are essentially disenfranchised with regards to their presidential vote. The result in their state is given and thus their vote is irrelevant. Seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that concentrates presidential campaigning to less than ten swing states – while sidelining the rest of the country.
On paper I agree, but then I think about how complex it would be in practice that I start to dislike it. If we're going to change the system it should be to make it a straight up national popular vote.
The issue with per-state proportionality is that EVs represent individual voters in the EC, so fractional EVs do not exist. Each state would instead have EV thresholds that determine how the EVs are allocated. Depending on how those allocations work out, it could end up even less democratic than the current system. It does have the potential to be better, too, but it's a lot of change for minimal upside even if it does work well.
The risk/reward ratio is bad, and the risk/reward/difficulty is even worse. The difficulty of achieving a national popular vote is arguably lower while having far greater reward for the country.
I agree! And I meant the experiment as a transition to straight-up national popular vote.
The problem now is that voters in more than 40 states are essentially disenfranchised with regards to their presidential vote. The result in their state is given and thus their vote is irrelevant. Seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that concentrates presidential campaigning to less than ten swing states – while sidelining the rest of the country.