“How does proportional appropriation of electors reflect an election where one candidate gets 48…
A Voiceless Nation
31

“The winners could negotiate with each other for their electoral votes since electors are not absolutely bound.”

26 states’ electors are bound by state laws to vote in a specific way, so this idea of negotiation becomes even more complicated and subject to individual states gaming the new system with their rules.

It would be up to the state to decide how to resolve such differences.”

You answer with respect to determining votes when there is a tiny margin, again leads to one of the main problems with our elections, the lack of consistency and fairness in who gets to vote, how easy it is for them to vote, how their vote gets counted, and, in this case, how to interpret the results of the state’s vote to award electoral votes. There will always be states that try to game the system to help their party win, even when the people vote against them.

“Only if the electors don’t agree to vote for another candidate.”

Not only does this not work in the case of 26 states, now you introduce the variable of some fractional, possibly extreme party potentially getting huge power if they have enough electoral votes to swing an election. Regardless of the deal made, giving a tiny group undue power is the opposite of the Constitutional principle that every vote should be counted and every vout should count the same.

“Primary changes wouldn’t be solved by NPV nor proportional allocation.”

If each party had to appeal to the largest possible number of voters, instead of narrowing their aim to a few key districts in a few key swing states, the desire to win in the general election would eventually influence each party to select more moderate candidates. When Romney lost in 2012, Republicans started to talk about changing their views on immigration, in order to appeal to more Latino voters. They also argued about becoming friendlier toward women voters, if not in their anti-abortion platform, at least in using more respectful language. If we have NPV this election, Trump’s loss could have been the final blow to right wing extremists. Since 2000, the Republican party has lost the national popular vote four out of five times, and yet won the White House three out of five times. Doing the wrong thing (playing to hate and extremism) and getting rewarded for it with a corrupt and obsolete election system only encourages them to keep subverting our democracy. If the GOP had to live through 24 out of 28 years of a Democratic president (going back to Bill Clinton), the party would either disintegrate or morph into a more inclusive party.

“I think the difference between the two would primarily be that NPV creates an emphasis for parties to turn out their base and strongest supporters while allocation creates emphasis to turn out disaffected voters.”

With the changing demographics in this country, the Republicans may only have a couple more elections where they can hope to squeeze out a plurality win based on aging white voters. NPV, or a simply abolishing the electoral college would force the GOP to become a more moderate and inclusive party, which means they would better represent the greatest number of people. In its current form, the GOP is completely controlled by the extreme right wing. If we look the goal of governance as doing what’s best for the country as a whole and for the greatest number of people, the current system does the complete opposite.

Analyzing all of the machinations and permutations to understand the final results of a state driven proportional voting system seems almost impossible. In addition, one must consider the future stream of changes as state legislatures try to find ways to gain more leverage for their states, or refuse to give up whatever built-in advantages they currently enjoy.

“As one example, the President has permitting authority for pipelines.”

The example of pipelines is as good an example as any to illustrate how messed up our system is. Look at any national poll and you will find a strong majority of the people of this country support environmental quality issues, such decreasing pollution, increased sustainable energy programs, outlawing fracking and preventing the building of the Keystone pipeline. Only the fossil fuel industries and the Republican politicians receiving contributions from those industries’ lobbyists are in lock step support of these programs. We need to change our system so that legislative policies are more in line with doing what’s best for the American people.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.