« When did House of Cards jump the shark? | Main | The beginning of the end of Venecuba was in 2007 »

April 17, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A very pessimistic view is that the blue states that passed this are being myopic and only thinking about 2000. A more optimistic view is that voters in urban states think their interests are likely to be more represented by the popular election then by the election as done by the electoral college. So shifting power from Montana (pop: 1 Mil) to Newark, NJ (pop: 0.28 Mil), et al.

Your very pessimistic view is quite plausible, sadly.

For the optimistic one: if true, shouldn't we see Texas support the national popular vote and Vermont oppose it?

I think this movement would change the calculus of the campaigns in Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, even if only blue and indigo states make such a rule change. I also think that this movement could pull along New Hampshire and Maine.

I don't think that there could be much impact from following the popular vote.

Well, since the Republican party tends to be more rural, I suspect Republican politicians in Texas are disinclined to support the popularization of the presidential vote. On issues relevant to the election of a president these days, Texans are probably more similar to Montanans than they are to Pennsylvanians, so pushing influence from Montana to Philadelphia doesn't help them get people they want elected president elected president.

The comments to this entry are closed.