My understanding -- though I can't find the information on this at the moment -- is that in prior attempts to abolish the Electoral College, the votes from legislators in small states didn't differ significantly from the votes in large states. The EC as is doesn't deliver much attention to the small states -- when was the last time someone campaigned in Vermont or Wyoming? But they do pay attention to Maine, because it isn't winner-take-all.
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:02:47 +0100 > From: "Raph Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [EM] NPV vs Condorcet > To: "Terry Bouricius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Ketchum > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Terry Bouricius > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1. The Senate does not need to be involved in amending the constitution. >> 2/3 of the state legislatures can initiate an amendment that then needs >> ratification by 3/4 of the states. > > The convention route is not that simple. It is not known how it would > operate. Potentially, the convention could propose an entirely new > constitution. Requesting a convention is a method to push Congress to > propose their own amendment. > >> 2. Small states may indeed be convinced to abolish the electoral college. >> My own state, the tiny Vermont, passed the National Popular Vote compact >> (but it was vetoed by the governor), and arguably, Vermont "benefits" from >> the current dsiproportionality built into the electoral college more than >> any other state. But because of the battle-ground-state-focus of >> presidential elections, Vermont has no felt impact on the presidential >> selection process at all. The candidates only appeal to swing voters in >> swing states. > > That is the kind of thing I was thinking of. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
