That is the point...decentralize power. Population centers could divide up so increase their power base, but they can't because that would take their chief source of funding, taxes, away from their direct control and put it in the hands of somebody else. That somebody else is then responsible to their constituents, not the previous holder.
They would literally be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Not by county, but by congressional district. That’s how the EC is currently denominated anyway. It would just function in all 50 how it does in Maine/Nebraska. I think this would be an amazing reform that I don’t even necessarily think would favor either party.
The winner of usa is the one that wins more than 50%+ points (electoral college votes) with rules for when you dont have more than 50%+ electoral college votes.
To make state votes closer to electoral college, the winner of 50%+ of the congretional districts of the state wins all state electoral college votes.
Then you would need to try to emulate the less than 50%+ of votes rules, maybe if more than 2 candidates won congretional district, the winner of most districts, assuming only the top 3 had votes is the winner, if there is still a tie or only two candidates had electoral college votes, the top candidate by popular vote (assuming only the top 3 or top 2 by congretional district had votes) is the winner
I'd like that. I with the "Nation Popular Vote Compact" people would suggest something like that. The intention and the upside of the Electoral college is the balancing of power for smaller regions. I don't see why states should be winner take all, under any system.
Even allocating electoral proportionally by state popular vote makes a lot of sense. It still allows the same city/rural problem within states, but at least the less populous areas of city-dominated states aren't totally disenfranchised.
Of course, with district-level EC allocation, the left would just cry harder about gerrymandering, which they think is a total scam that is the only reason Republicans have any power. (Which, to be fair, isn't the craziest of their beliefs, even fit hey are crazy about it.)
So would proportional-by-state allocation be so bad? And any single state could do that. But they don't, they want the national popular vote. Because California doesn't want to let any of their votes turn blue. They want the power to turn all of Colorado's votes blue.
Love this idea on so many levels. Would almost say one county one vote.
They'd just make more counties.
That is the point...decentralize power. Population centers could divide up so increase their power base, but they can't because that would take their chief source of funding, taxes, away from their direct control and put it in the hands of somebody else. That somebody else is then responsible to their constituents, not the previous holder.
They would literally be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Not by county, but by congressional district. That’s how the EC is currently denominated anyway. It would just function in all 50 how it does in Maine/Nebraska. I think this would be an amazing reform that I don’t even necessarily think would favor either party.
I don't think it would favor either party: see my post just below this.
But, as the OP suggests: it would be an effective limitation on fraud by the political "machines" that seem to be endemic in large urban areas.
As things stand, it would favor the Republican party, because the Democrats currently only win by cheating.
Long-term, it would force broader appeal, and bring so-called "flyover" states back into play.
The winner of usa is the one that wins more than 50%+ points (electoral college votes) with rules for when you dont have more than 50%+ electoral college votes.
To make state votes closer to electoral college, the winner of 50%+ of the congretional districts of the state wins all state electoral college votes.
Then you would need to try to emulate the less than 50%+ of votes rules, maybe if more than 2 candidates won congretional district, the winner of most districts, assuming only the top 3 had votes is the winner, if there is still a tie or only two candidates had electoral college votes, the top candidate by popular vote (assuming only the top 3 or top 2 by congretional district had votes) is the winner
I'd like that. I with the "Nation Popular Vote Compact" people would suggest something like that. The intention and the upside of the Electoral college is the balancing of power for smaller regions. I don't see why states should be winner take all, under any system.
Even allocating electoral proportionally by state popular vote makes a lot of sense. It still allows the same city/rural problem within states, but at least the less populous areas of city-dominated states aren't totally disenfranchised.
Of course, with district-level EC allocation, the left would just cry harder about gerrymandering, which they think is a total scam that is the only reason Republicans have any power. (Which, to be fair, isn't the craziest of their beliefs, even fit hey are crazy about it.)
So would proportional-by-state allocation be so bad? And any single state could do that. But they don't, they want the national popular vote. Because California doesn't want to let any of their votes turn blue. They want the power to turn all of Colorado's votes blue.
LOL