Good morning from the beautiful SF Bay Area. Very thought provoking for this old Leftie, thank you, Russell, more like this would be greatly appreciated. Blessings.
My issue with direct popular vote for president is what happens in a close election: can you imagine doing recounts in every county in the country?! While the formula for electoral college seats of one per congressional district and one per senator does favor small states, I don't think it necessarily favors one party over the other. After all, the Senate is currently Democrat and the House Republican. So that's advantage Democrat. Democrats who argue that it favors Republicans because of this aspect are proven wrong. There are many small blue states in the North-East. The problem is the 'winner take all' assignment of electoral votes by state. In California, we are not even given the names of our electors. So the large urban cities overwhem the significant rural population. The opposite occurs in Texas. I would get rid of winner take all, and vote for one elector per congressional district and two state-wide (as I understand Maine and Nebraska do). This would force presidential candidates to consider the concerns for all states, not just 6 or 7 purple states. Another acceptable option would be the proportional allocation of electors (similar to the way primary delegates are assigned in some states). However, I prefer the idea of knowing our local elector. We elect someone we trust to make a wise decision. By making the assignment of electors more granular, it should be far less likely for the electoral college vote to deviate from the popular vote.
![[[OFFICIAL MV]] เอิ้นขวัญให้อ้าย- อ๊ะอาย สกุณาพร | ค่ายเพลงเป็นหนึ่ง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/83x6L3X3qh0/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow, Mr. Levin is one intelligent guy. Great guest. Completely loved your conversation. Thank you CT for this episode!
Good morning from the beautiful SF Bay Area. Very thought provoking for this old Leftie, thank you, Russell, more like this would be greatly appreciated. Blessings.
My issue with direct popular vote for president is what happens in a close election: can you imagine doing recounts in every county in the country?!
While the formula for electoral college seats of one per congressional district and one per senator does favor small states, I don't think it necessarily favors one party over the other. After all, the Senate is currently Democrat and the House Republican. So that's advantage Democrat. Democrats who argue that it favors Republicans because of this aspect are proven wrong. There are many small blue states in the North-East.
The problem is the 'winner take all' assignment of electoral votes by state. In California, we are not even given the names of our electors. So the large urban cities overwhem the significant rural population. The opposite occurs in Texas.
I would get rid of winner take all, and vote for one elector per congressional district and two state-wide (as I understand Maine and Nebraska do). This would force presidential candidates to consider the concerns for all states, not just 6 or 7 purple states.
Another acceptable option would be the proportional allocation of electors (similar to the way primary delegates are assigned in some states). However, I prefer the idea of knowing our local elector. We elect someone we trust to make a wise decision.
By making the assignment of electors more granular, it should be far less likely for the electoral college vote to deviate from the popular vote.