![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Electoral votes
Sep. 28th, 2007 10:14 pmThat initiative to apportion California's presidential electoral votes by congressional district, thereby tipping the Electoral College greatly toward the Republicans in time for 2008? Not going to happen.
Maine and Nebraska already allocate their electoral votes this way (though it rarely if ever makes a difference there), and I even proposed doing it nationwide once as some sort of middle ground between the system we've got and direct popular election of the president. However, my proposal also involved eliminating the two votes per state corresponding to each state's Senators (since, I reasoned, in the system we've got today the enormous overweighting of small rural states' voters is partially compensated by the low political power of rural voters in big urban states, who have similar interests--if we're going to remove one effect we might as well do our best to mitigate the other); and, besides, doing it in just one big state isn't the right way. Of course, any such scheme would also make the presidential election sensitive to district gerrymandering, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sunburn pointed out.
These days, I'm a lot more sympathetic to just electing the president by direct popular vote (ideally with either a runoff system, or some sort of multiple-preference scheme to reduce spoiler effects) than I used to be. There's the potential for nationwide chaos in the event of a very close election--in 2000 I was very sensitive to that--but that's just because of problems that need to be fixed anyway. Reducing the power of an individual vote just in case there's something wrong with the voting process seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater; you should fix the process instead.
Also, as I said in that earlier LJ post, the major parties really, really need to get their act together and fix the primary system; it's broken and stupid.
Maine and Nebraska already allocate their electoral votes this way (though it rarely if ever makes a difference there), and I even proposed doing it nationwide once as some sort of middle ground between the system we've got and direct popular election of the president. However, my proposal also involved eliminating the two votes per state corresponding to each state's Senators (since, I reasoned, in the system we've got today the enormous overweighting of small rural states' voters is partially compensated by the low political power of rural voters in big urban states, who have similar interests--if we're going to remove one effect we might as well do our best to mitigate the other); and, besides, doing it in just one big state isn't the right way. Of course, any such scheme would also make the presidential election sensitive to district gerrymandering, as
sunburn pointed out.These days, I'm a lot more sympathetic to just electing the president by direct popular vote (ideally with either a runoff system, or some sort of multiple-preference scheme to reduce spoiler effects) than I used to be. There's the potential for nationwide chaos in the event of a very close election--in 2000 I was very sensitive to that--but that's just because of problems that need to be fixed anyway. Reducing the power of an individual vote just in case there's something wrong with the voting process seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater; you should fix the process instead.
Also, as I said in that earlier LJ post, the major parties really, really need to get their act together and fix the primary system; it's broken and stupid.