!politicalvideos@lemmy.world
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
24 points (87.5% liked)
Videos
14310 readers
385 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This person knows just enough to sound credible and still get it wrong. He says that the electoral college requires states to allocate all delegates to the popular vote winner in each state, which is not true. States can allocate delegates however they want, and at least two states allocate proportionally to how how their populace voted.
This is a critical difference, because eliminating a mismatch between the electoral college and national popular vote doesn't require eliminating the college. Eliminating the college requires a constitutional amendment, which is difficult to achieve. The National Popular Vote Compact requires nearly as much effort, and it's incredibly fragile, because as soon as a few states allocate all of their electors to a candidate who lost in that state, they'll pull out and the whole thing will crumble.
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. It doesn't require huge buy in to work, just a handful of states, so it's easier to achieve and more stable. Every mismatch better the electoral college and national popular vote in US history would not have occurred if states allocated delegates proportionally, so it solves the problem. People should start recognizing the real problem, so that we can work on a real solution.
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).
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.
No person is advantaged by having their voting power go toward a candidate they woudn't vote for.