Instead, we need proportional allocation of electoral votes within each state.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state’s bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

Independence now!

Interesting point.

THAT has been precisely the point of those of us who have left the Green Party.

We base it on experience. I wonder if Asa Gordon will cover that point? Or indeed the Green Party Watch or the Green Party newspaper?

nahhhhhhhh..

//:-)>————

Fortunately, you do not have a Committee To End Free Speech here..

There’re others, too. All US territories.

and you wonder why I label you belligerent?

Nay, you do not wonder at all, you knew all along, Mister Agent Provocateur…….

Duh: Mister Room Temperature IQ, DC physically contains the three branches of the Federal Government. Oh, you knew that!

paulie,
D.C. independence v statehood? Say what? I have no problem with P.R. independence. But D.C.?

Why not?

But it’s worse for any one state that does this. That’s why Nebraska is considering going back to winner-takes-all.

It’s the Prisoner’s Dilemma with 51 players.

And even if you DID convince every state to split its electors proportionately, since it’s a single-winner plurality election, Duverger’s Law tells us that third parties will still have ZERO practical chance of winning.

I keep thinking about running for Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner in my neighborhood…

Good idea. DC has one advantage in having a formal citywide structure at such a local level..