| ckmlb said: @Entroper: So because turnout could be low then Californians aren't getting what they want? The people who care will show up and vote, those who don't only have themselves to blame. |
So because people don't catch them screwing around with the system, that makes it OK? See, I can ask oversimplifying rhetorical questions, too.
The propaganda behind this movement talks about how the 2000 election was "unfair" because Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote. Well, if we look at the 2000 election, but assume that California had adopted this system, Gore would still have won the popular vote, and Bush would still have won the electoral vote, but by a much wider margin. So in fact, changing the policy in just one state actually widens the gap between the popular vote and the electoral vote. This is exactly opposite to the intended result!
The results in the 2004 election would be similarly skewed. Kerry got 48% of the popular vote to Bush's 51%, and Kerry received 47% of the electoral vote to Bush's 53%. If California had adopted this system, Kerry would have received 43% of the electoral vote to Bush's 57%. Still think this is an improvement?
