I would consider proportional voting for President f it were done on a national basis; while it's being voted for only in those GOP-led states that have tended to vote majority Democrat in presidential elections, it's clearly just manipulation the rules in one's favor.
But I'd rather see spotty state proportional voting (which is, at the very least, locally democatic) than proportional voting by congressional district. Given the manipulation and gerrymandering of district lines by whomever (GOP or Dem) is in charge of the state lege right after the decennial Census, multiplying that effect by letting it influence the presidential elections, too, is practically criminal.
(h/t +Les Jenkins)
Republicans are trying to legally rig elections: Michigan edition – AMERICAblog News
Like similar proposals in other states, a new bill in Michigan would allocate electoral votes wildly unrepresentative congressional districts.
Aren't there rules about conflicts of interest that could prevent this crap?
+Scott Randel Not really, no, no more than against gerrymandering in general.
Same OLD Marxist Democrat Party BS. They never tier of their lies. Their tactic: Always accuse your opponent of what you do. They have one hundred percent of Cook County's Dead on their voter list. Been like that for many decades. Murder capital of the world.
If they're going to do a major electoral reform, I think I'd rather see the instant runoff. I think you'd see much better adoption of third parties if people knew that their vote could still be counted if their main candidate doesn't clear.
If I'm not mistaken, both parties have rigged the system. Can you explain why their popularity is in the single digits but they manage to win come election time?
Because a lot of people think that all politicians are crooked except that one honest guy they voted for.
are you kidding of course they know their
politicians are crooked but not as much as the
other guy/women
+Arpachshad sonofshem Well, that's constructive.
I'm not sure that putative "voting the dead" shenanigans somehow justify "extend gerrymandering to presidential elections. Better to stamp out one and avoid the other, wouldn't you think?
+John Patti As Les notes, popularity of the institution is at an all time low. But my guy isn't one of those dunderheads.
Or, alternately, low popularity of the institution means low turnout at elections means whoever is the incumbent (and thus has the money, party backing, and free publicity) will be more likely to win than some challenger.
Election my ass, all a hoax .
+John Lomax While I don't think elections in the US are nearly as free as we'd all like to believe, I'm not cynical enough (or conspiracy-minded enough) to think they fit the term "hoax."
I have a pointy stick too . I use it for extracting wax from ear holes .
+Dave Hill U S elections are controlled by media which is 100% run by Corporations ,.
U S has 1 party Corporations .
+John Lomax I don't think things are quite that bad (or simple), though there there's some truth in what you say.
If its from the gop rest assured its underhanded and illegal
The bottom line is that the republican party thinks it can't win fair elections. They're right.
Gerrymandering has been a coveted and effective practice performed by Democrats. And it's impossible to separate from the history of the party. There are past and present examples that are stunning in their complicated boundaries to grab the voting demographics wanted and needed. One interesting upshot is this: that as a result of these districts, the Dems have become the party of the rich.
+alias inkhorn You're certainly not going to find me defending the practice of gerrymandering, by either party. It is a temptation that tends to overwhelm both of them. Right now, it's more of a Republican tool because of the number of statehouses that the GOP took in 2010, but I don't doubt that many Dem politicians have, did, and would return the favor.
Which, for me, is an example of why distributing the electoral vote along congressional district lines is such a bad idea. Anything that further encourages gerrymandering, from either party, is not only unhelpful, but destructive.
It needs to be popular vote not electoral BS. The need for that ended long ago.
+Kevin Rahe That certainly makes sense. I've seen some spirited defenses of the electoral system, so it may not be completely open and shut, but it would be worth considering.
Unfortunately, any change of that sort would require a constitutional amendment to make it happen, and that seems passingly unlikely at the moment.
Breathless!