Don’t get me wrong, I really like the Electoral College for picking the president. It gives a modicum of moderateness in the presidential candidates, with the emphasis of states in the ideological middle at the expense, unfortunately, of those states that are not. Additionally, although Nebraska and Maine themselves allocate their electoral by district and then statewide, those states are good because they give an incentive, albeit small, to the candidate that would not normally have won the state to still try to appeal to that district which is in the benefit of the state (e.g. Obama really fought for the 2nd district of Nebraska giving an “Obamaha” exclamation point, a state he never had a chance to win but this campaign, nevertheless, spoke to the people of that district.). However, I have a different opinion for the larger states. Gerrymandering is so entrenched in the states that it would defeat the spirit of voting that it must be done by a majority of the area (district- or state-wide) and allocate votes on a very disproportionate basis. I wouldn’t mind if maybe the electoral votes were split on some kind of percentage basis, but this smacks of picking voters rather than voters picking you. Of course, most people would live to get rid of the Electoral College, but tactics like this does not really engender me to switch to the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.
- Republicans seek to change how electoral votes are allocated (cbsnews.com)
- We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House (tv.msnbc.com)
- Some GOP-led states look at electoral vote changes (cnn.com)
- Republicans’ Push to Tilt Elections Will Backfire – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
- How to Win States and Disenfranchise People: The GOP’s Electoral-Vote Plan (theatlantic.com)