Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Barney who wrote (3399)	12/7/2000 12:09:56 PM
From: Valley Girl	Respond to of 3887

This is indeed a fair compromise that doesn't require a constitutional amendment. The finer-grained division of electors would make it extremely unlikely that in future anyone wins the presidency without winning the popular vote. That is, it would if it all states followed the rule, and there's the rub - the less populated states wouldn't go for it, so their votes would be even more disproportionate. For example, in the current election California is on one side of the scale and half a dozen other western states are on the other. No doubt there would be more than a few Gore electors in those states if their votes were split. If California were to have unilaterally split its votes while the other states hadn't, it would mean giving Bush his fair share of California's electors while allowing him to keep an unfair share of the electors in other states. This is why I think it's unlikely the big states will ever voluntarily go for the split (and it's not partisan, since the identical logic would hold if you reversed the party affiliations in the example).