Yeah, the all-or-nothing scheme seems to be favored for some reason- I guess it’s the idea that it tends to guarantee a clear outcome, because historically it’s not like one party has been pushing for repeal, and the other pushing against.
I’m just thinking that not only proportional representation, but voting by district would be more representative- there wouldn’t be wrangling about rounding up/down, etc… but you’d still have 100 electoral votes that would be all-or-nothing by state.
It seems like a reasonable compromise- the popular vote sounds like a great idea, but it totally ignores the fact that the States themselves are participants in the choice of government, which is a huge part historically of the US system of government. Beyond that, I suspect that EVERY single election would be some skin-of-the-teeth thing, with all the screechings about voter fraud, etc… that we occasionally see.
Just because only two out of 50 states do it that way right now, doesn’t mean that such an amendment would be unpopular with the other 48. States don’t want to do it unilaterally, because that’ll decrease their relative power, but it might be OK when you’re forcing everyone else to do it, too.
That said, such a system would also make it possible to gerrymander Presidential elections, which would not be a good thing.
No way in hell is this a good proposal. The districts are gerrymandered (with a few exceptions) to put as many Republicans in Congress as possible. If we adopted this, we’d never see a Democratic president again.
Let’s be real. Districts are used to ensure either a Dem or a Pub is elected. Even if the current status were changed so that one party couldn’t favor themselves in redistricting we still wouldn’t have a system with true proportional representation.
I agree. Look at the 538 models for different redistricting.
I’m starting to believe the best option is to just increase the size of the House by, say, 100 members, maybe 150. It brings elected representatives closer to their constituents, and makes the electoral college more representative of the whole country.
I would like to start by having a true proportional representation (viz. no districting) to represent the voters. In my state that would probably give a 3(D) / 2(R) / 2(I) split. Otherwise you just have more of the same you have now.
One compromise that falls between the current system and a full on popular vote would be to change the structure of the electoral college by providing that states only get the same votes as they have Representatives. They get nothing for their Senate two seats.
Smaller states like North Dakota would kick, since it would reduce them from 3 votes to 1, but proposing a constitutional amendment along these lines might start a conversation about the role of the Electoral College, the over-representation of small states under the current system, while balancing against the basic fact that the US is a federation of states, and each state should have a minimum guaranteed vote with respect to the presidency.
You don’t need to propose an amendment to “start a conversation”. We are having a conversation right here. The first sticking point in the conversation is: what’s in it for small states? Why would Wyoming and North Dakota and Alaska want to support it? It looks like you’re asking them to give something up and get nothing in return. That’s a negotiating tactic that’s unlikely to lead to agreement, to put it mildly.
I don’t recall the Democrats engaging in any recounts. I remember Jill Stein trying to do it but, to be fair, if not for her no recounts would have been necessary. Nor do I recall any attempts to persuade electors to “go faithless”. I, personally would have liked to have seen that or at least having them place greater faith in the country itself. And it could have happened if Hillary had instructed “her” electors to cote, instead, for a rational Republican like, say, John Kasich. Then see if any Republican electors would follow suit. Think of what the country could have been spared.
No one officially objected. In every election a few people want to give speeches. that’s not that same thing as a real objection, and note …" with Biden gaveling them down for failure to follow the rules.".
Even the Colorado elector that’s at the center of the court case that is the impetus for this thread, Michael Baca, wanted to vote for another Republican in a convoluted scheme to try to deny President Trump the office he won.
No one had their objections sustained. The article says “House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiples states”. Sure, they’re mostly incompetent fuckwits so their objections were ruled out of order, but like a lawyer saying “Objection!” and a judge saying “overruled”, the objection was still “a real objection”.
The article conclude with “But at the end of the day, despite the objections, Trump’s election was certified by Congress.”
He didn’t want to deny Trump anything that he won. At that time, Trump hadn’t won anything, because the election hadn’t happened yet. He was trying to prevent Trump from winning, by persuading people to vote for someone other than him.