In U.S. Presidential races, the popular-vote winner will lose 40% of elections decided by 2 million votes or less. Electoral College "inversions" have been likely since the 1800s, from @MikeGeruso, Dean Spears, and Ishaana Talesara https://t.co/mCxLHGut39 pic.twitter.com/6NmnRvyiVj— NBER (@nberpubs) September 15, 2019
Sunday, September 15, 2019
What the electoral college hath wrought, 4 "inversions" 1839-2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
ReplyDeleteIt requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.