Why was changing Colorado's electoral vote distribution--from winner-take-all to a percentage of the popular vote--a great idea when Democrats proposed it a few years ago, but California's current proposal, to do exactly the same thing, is a "Republican power grab"?
Because Colorado's change would most likely have benefited Democrats, and California's would most likely benefit Republicans.
At the time, I said that I'd be ok with Colorado's change if California also did the same--net benefit to Republicans as well as to those who want the popular vote for President to decide the election.
But it's not going to happen here, that's for sure.
3 comments:
I think the proportional splitting of electoral votes would be much more representative of the voters' choice.
However, I have one problem with the idea.
Look at the problems that ensued from the close elections in Florida, Ohio, and a few other states. With a proportional method, such disputes would multiply exponentially in any close election.
Suddenly, every state with results within a small margin of a break point would become the object of law suits, claims of cheating, and endless blather and bickering between the parties.
It would be virtually endless, and I believe it would so demoralize the public, that the scant faith still retained in our politicians would crumble even more. And the parties themselves would dig ever deeper into a confrontational 'screw them' mode of operation.
If you think we're a divided nation now, just wait until we're faced with days and days of rancor in dozens on states throughout the nation.
You don't think we're already there?
I'd support the move, provided we didn't have such gerrymandered districts in so many states.
After all, for many years here in texas it would have meant a majority of the popular vote going for a Republican, but a majority of the electoral votes going for the Democrats because of the partisan gerrymander done by the Democrats.
Post a Comment