Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
I don't believe this would be the case.
... A vote from rural Wyoming, which is currently not contested at all, would count the same as a vote from urban New York City, which is also currently not contested at all.
|
You're correct in theory but wrong in practice, because it isn't worth going to Wyoming to get that vote. There aren't enough of them. 83% of the US population lives in urban areas. In a pure "national vote count" scenario, winning those votes becomes all that truly matters - it's the only reasonable way to spend your time and money if you're campaigning. Or, in other words...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
It would turn even more into a turn out your base concept. The cheapest way to increase votes would be to improve voter turnout in high density areas. If this is the case you would see a push to even more polarizing policy then you have now.
|
One option that makes sense to me at least in theory - and I'm sure someone will have an argument about why it's a bad idea, but I haven't heard it yet - is to have electors partly allocated on the state-wide basis, and then have a percentage of each state's electors be allocated based on the popular vote total in that state.
So, take Texas. It has 38 EVs. Let's say 19 go to the winner of the state and 19 go by popular vote. Then let's say Trump ends up winning that state 52-48, which doesn't seem like a crazy outcome. Trump gets 29 EVs from Texas and Biden gets 9. Suddenly if you're a Texan Democrat, your vote for President matters, but it also still matters that you're a
Texan Democrat, so the Presidential candidates have to take into account the needs and desires of voters in each state when trying to win their votes.
It's a lot like the MMP proposals that gain traction every few years up here.