169 Comments

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

Expand full comment

Is there a safe word for the "Special Master?"

Expand full comment

National Strategic Ammonia Preserve, must keep our precious bodily fluids safe from subversive foreigners!

Expand full comment

https://uploads.disquscdn.c... Jim Jordan (R) Moscow

Expand full comment

We;ve got the same in NZ. But our (and most commonwealth countries') government agencies are non-partisan from top to bottom, whereas in Americania management down to a fairly low level are all partisan appointments.

Expand full comment

And he's got a prison in his district. Inmates can't vote but they count in the enumeration.

Expand full comment

I'm crossing my toes, too.

Expand full comment

Yep.If you look at a district and your first thought is 'Dafuq?!' then it has probably been gerrymandered and that one... is not the most egregious I have seen, but it seems pretty damn obvious that it is.

Expand full comment

Worked in South Africa. For a while.

Expand full comment

A seahorse? Woodpecker? Lava flow?

Expand full comment

Sounds like a Deep State-- you know, competent public servants. Here in the USA we've got Deep Lorables.

Expand full comment

Die already! Republican party of Putin. (not the people, just the party. With votes, in case I was a bad girl.)

Expand full comment

I remember some candidate (in Chicago?) showing what her district looked like, and it was staggering. The boundary would specifically cut out specific buildings along its edge -- because people who live in apartments are generally poorer, thus vote D -- in order to deliver a Republican majority in a state whose population was mostly Democrat. The US voting system is (almost) hopelessly fucked. I hope SCOTUS fixes it, because it would deliver an almost-permanent Democratic majority nationwide virtually overnight.

Expand full comment

Is it just me, or does that district kinda look like Trogdor? Although I guess it makes sense, since the GOP motto is basically "burninate the peasants." https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Expand full comment

Oh hell yes.

Expand full comment

Pretty much any ex-Commonwealth country or EU country has a non-partisan boundary commission. I have had a quick look online at various EU countries and there was no district that stood out as very oddly shaped like that one in Ohio above.

Expand full comment