-
Zeke posted an update 6 years, 2 months ago
“48 states give all of their electors to the candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the state popular vote, regardless of how wide or narrow the victory. This freezes out even a large minority from gaining any representation in the Electoral College, and drastically magnifies the significance of a handful of votes in arbitrary swing states.”
The Giza Forum (Legacy)
Closed Archive of The Old Forum
Gaming the Electoral College
Winner Take All (WTA) awards all electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the state. This is the current methodology in all but Maine and Nebraska.
Congressional District – Popular (CDP) awards two electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the state, with one each allocated to the popular vote winner in each individual Congressional District (CD). This approach is used by Maine and Nebraska.
Congressional District (CD): In 2012, Romney would have gained 68 electoral votes from the 206 he won, putting him in the White House with 274. This year, Trump would have lost 16, giving him 290. Trump won a number of states that Romney lost, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, with a large portion of conservative districts. As a result, in these states, the congressional district method would be less beneficial to Trump than winner take all.
There aren’t that many battleground congressional districts in 2010’s-era America. This makes the congressional district method much more stable than winner take all.
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
Congressional District – Popular (CDP) awards two electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the state, with one each allocated to the popular vote winner in each individual Congressional District (CD). This approach is used by Maine and Nebraska.
Congressional District (CD): In 2012, Romney would have gained 68 electoral votes from the 206 he won, putting him in the White House with 274. This year, Trump would have lost 16, giving him 290. Trump won a number of states that Romney lost, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, with a large portion of conservative districts. As a result, in these states, the congressional district method would be less beneficial to Trump than winner take all.
There aren’t that many battleground congressional districts in 2010’s-era America. This makes the congressional district method much more stable than winner take all.
Red state or blue, voters would benefit. Romney would have beaten Obama in 12, for example. But the main problem I’m seeing is the forced TWO PARTY system, which the current EC setup fuels with focus on only the battleground States. Green Party, or theoretically the Giza Death Star Party, get ZERO representation in the final count. A tweaked EC setup and Ranked Choice Voting would be going into 2nd and 3rd gear in representation efficiency. We’re in 1st gear or stupid mode. We’re forced to support a Clown or a Shill – neither of which to many of us are acceptable.
“Our claims are grounded on bedrock constitutional precedents that call into question this practice. Specifically, the Supreme Court has for half a century recognized the possibility of invidious “vote dilution”: the commonsense idea that certain electoral systems, even if they nominally treat voters equally, are unconstitutionally designed to magnify the power of majorities and minimize minority voting strength. “