Replies

“Although I would love to see this happen in CA, it would create havoc if adopted nation wide and would ensure a handful of cities like LA, NY, Philly, and Chicago with a few others thrown in would elect the president...”

Actually, it’s the other way around. The overwhelming Democrat vote in big cities such as NYC, LA, Philly and Chicago would no longer place all of the state’s electoral votes in the Democrat column; today, of those 4 states, only Pennsylvania is competitive in presidential elections, and the 90%+ Democrat vote in Philly has allowed the Democrats to get all of the state’s 21+ EVs for the past 4 elections. Chicago has something like 5 or 6 electoral votes within its borders, and those 5 or 6 would obviously go to the Democrats, as would the 2 EVs going to the statewide winner in Illinois, but the Chicago vote would no longer prevent the GOP candidate from picking up EVs if he carries Downstate and suburban districts.

I’m not saying that I necessarily support this measure being adopted nationwide, since it would create an even greater incentive to gerrymander congressional districts, but it would serve to make big cities less powerful in presidential elections, which I think would be a good thing.

Agreed. I was thinking along the lines that the cities would get more votes because of population instead of the vote spread across congressional districts. Allow me to present my mea culpa.

I also agree that the threat of gerrymandering would be immense and after careful review, I would like to learn more...

A district method would make ALL states competitive. A Democratic candidate would even be able to pick up a couple of electoral votes in the South and Mountain West where its no go territory for them. Ditto for the GOP candidate in California, Michigan and the Northeast. Candidates could no longer ignore certain states anymore since no state would be a "lock" for one party. Its certainly more democratic than the unit rule which disregards voters who voted for the losing candidate in a state. I don't see how depriving such voters of being represented by their candidate accords with the rules of fair play and the way the popular vote is supposed to work. I suspect if the district method were applied nationwide, the results would be a wash: neither of the two parties would gain an advantage over the other on Election Day.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

and the 90%+ Democrat vote in Philly has allowed the Democrats to get all of the state’s 21+ EVs for the past 4 elections.

Not to pick nits or anything, but didn't Philly have more voters take part in the election last go round than were actually registered? That would make it more like 105% democrat vote... :-)