MI GOP to advance EC reallocation plan

[Skill and Chance]

Snyder's (smartly) going to kill it if he has to.  Look at his quote at the bottom.

Allocating EV this way is at least better than the gerrymandered CDs method.  I would support PV proportionality if done uniformly everywhere and the "senator" EVs are allowed to split (so PA would have been a 10/10 tie in 2012 for example).

[Skill and Chance]

What is that program where states are encouraged to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote? The National Vote Compact?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).  The problem is 1. It probably wouldn't get past this SCOTUS, 2. disparities between state voting laws, and 3. Incentive to be as liberal/conservative as humanly possible because if you can win 80% in California/Texas with 80% turnout, nothing else matters.

But a national proportional system would probably moderate both parties  because Texas D's and Northeastern R's suddenly matter.  And the risk of going against the popular vote or sending it to the House, while technically not impossible, is highly unlikely, particularly if you allow the "senator" EVs in each state to split.

[Skill and Chance]

What is that program where states are encouraged to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote? The National Vote Compact?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).  The problem is 1. It probably wouldn't get past this SCOTUS, 2. disparities between state voting laws, and 3. Incentive to be as liberal/conservative as humanly possible because if you can win 80% in California/Texas with 80% turnout, nothing else matters.

But a national proportional system would probably moderate both parties  because Texas D's and Northeastern R's suddenly matter.  And the risk of going against the popular vote or sending it to the House, while technically not impossible, is highly unlikely, particularly if you allow the "senator" EVs in each state to split.

Would that really happen though, don't most people consider themselves moderates?

The reason it won't happen is because it would make it much more likely that a strong third party could form. No one wants to share.

Most present day likely voters consider themselves moderate/independent, but that is skewed because turnout is 65-70% in the swing and lean states, while it is only 50-55% in the hardcore partisan states. And with few exceptions, swing states swing because they have more persuadable voters: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/12/the-states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-turnout-in-2012-in-2-charts/

The safe partisan states are generally larger, too.  California, New York and Texas are near the bottom, and the small safe R states add up to another Texas worth of R votes.  This is a recipe for never-ending Ted Cruz vs. Elizabeth Warren elections.     

[Skill and Chance]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

Are you sure you would want to politicize EV allocation?  What if the map simply changes and the GOP candidate wins MI/PA/WI outright but still loses 10-15 EV from them?  And you would truly reap the whirlwind after the next Democratic wave when they retaliate by making lean R states proportional.

I wouldn't be opposed to proportional allocation, but it should be all 50 states or none.

[Skill and Chance]

This would be great to do in all states where we have state legislative majorities and governorships.  In this case, the real Michigan will finally get a chance to have a say, and we can expand the swing state map for Republicans. Folks outside Detroit  can finally have their voices heard after years of being drowned out.

I'm sure you're also oh so concerned for the voices of Democrats in Texas being drowned out.

Of course it's a partisan power grab. California had to unilaterally disarm on redistricting while TX, FL, PA, OH, MI, VA, NC, and GA rammed through partisan Republican gerrymanders.

Give it time and a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

[Skill and Chance]

Anybody know where exactly they came up with the particular scheme under discussion here? It's unlike anything I've seen before. It's not proportional representation, and it's not splitting up EVs by district. This 1.5% of the vote = 1 EV thing is odd. It seems to say that if one candidate gets 60.5% of the two party vote in Michigan, then that candidate would take all of Michigan's EVs, right?

Probably because it's just enough to turn this map into a 270/268 GOP win: