this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
24 points (87.5% liked)

Videos

14310 readers
378 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The solution is for states to allocate delegates proportionally. That is in the best interest of each state, so it’s not fragile. It can be accomplished one state at a time, so it’s logistically easier.

Isn't this overlooking that each state that does this, especially swing states, does it at their own disadvantage? States that allocate their electoral votes all-or-nothing have more sway over politicians who receive those votes (because the politicians are, in turn, are incentivized to spend their effort on states where the return on that effort is larger, and an effort that wins you 5% of the vote in an all-or-nothing swing state could win you the whole state's worth of electoral votes, compared to 5% of electoral votes in a proportionally allocated state).

[–] divineslayer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

And imagine that every blue state implements this but every red state does not. It would have to be done across the board to keep it balanced.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No person is advantaged by having their voting power go toward a candidate they woudn't vote for.