Replies

The end result? In 2012, instead of a 332 to 206 vote victory for Obama-Biden in the Electoral College, the Maine-Nebraska system would have produced a comfortable 282 to 256 vote victory for Romney-Ryan, an outcome that would have been far closer to expressing the will of the people than the present winner-take-all system.

That's simply not true. If a majority voted for Obama, and Romney gets a majority of electoral votes, that is not closer to expressing the will of the people.

Our system anticipates the possibility of the winner of the electoral vote losing the popular vote, because it is important for the president to express the will of the COUNTRY, not just of the people.

Individual states, like Nebraska and Maine are free to change up their systems as tehy see fit, but it is folly to believe that the same dynamic taht makes for a large bloc of Democratic states won't change in the future. Indeed, only a couple of decades ago, the popular thinking was that the electoral college already favored Republicans, giving them a near lock on the presidency for the foreseeable future. After a weak candidate like George the Elder won in 1988 (running as Reagan's Third Term) it was easy to see why people would be drawn to that notion.

Since Clinton, the Dems have started to win or at least be competitive in the suburbs. That has made the difference. Also, whereas Yankee flight has tended to create more sunbelt Republican influence, lately the numbers got large enough fast enough that states like North Carolina and Virginia are starting to get infected like Vermont and New Hampshire did long ago.

I do not support Trump, but he puts all the numbers in play. He certainly makes the Dems have to consider his influence on the turnout in states like New Jersey and New York, and certainly Pennsylvania.

I do not trust him as a president, and would love to be proven wrong about him. However, he has demonstrated that it is possible to appeal to a broad spectrum without being a milquetoast or being obligated to splitting the difference over controversial issues. For a long time, I have maintained there are a lot of people in the wrong party, and we need a realignment so that those who have contempt for social-conservative/small government Republicans (a k a "the base") need to carve out a large biche in the Democratic Party, so they can workout a settlement with the professional victim classes with whom they are willing to do business. A lot of people who have sat out the system in general, seeing not a dime's worth of difference, plus those who would like to cut back on new open borders trade deals and agreements (NAFTA, WTO, GATT) are presently homeless, and should be given a voice in the Republican Party. They are natural allies.

This means less money for campaigns, fewer bennies for Republicans to get re-elected on the cheap, etc. It is the only way to have a conservative party that represents the base, keeping corruption within more workable levels.