On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Kathy Dopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I > forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes. > Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its > electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would > have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential > contest.
Yeah, it is the whole 'unilateral disarmament' issue. A reasonable idea would be for a group of States to get together and all agree (by compact maybe) to switch to proportional. If the group as a whole has the same proportion of support for each party as it currently casts its votes, then it doesn't change the balance, but it means that those States now matter as they are no longer locked down by one or other of the parties. I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It would even be possible to create a compact if the States were unbalanced. The last (disadvantaged) State to enter would be allowed to assign some of its seat to the majority winner and then the rest proportionally. Ofc, that requires that each State to be certified as a Republican and/or Democrat State. Maybe, it could be based on the the results of the last 4 elections. I think there are a reasonable number of States which are solid for one party or another. Also, it would probably be necessary to allow States to assign their two Senate EC voters to the majority winner. Otherwise, small States wouldn't join, though maybe that doesn't matter. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
