I’ve previously expressed an interest in seeing adjustments made to how representation is determined at the federal level in the U.S. One of the easier adjustments that could be made is to revise the determination of how electoral votes are cast to not be “winner-take-all” at the state level, but instead allocate all-but-two of a state’s electoral votes based on “winner-take-all” at the congressional district level.
However, there is one obstacle to implementing such a reform piecemeal across the country. If a big state makes the change on its own, without other states following suit, you create a situation that is even less representative of the will of the American people, as this Reliable Politics article points out:
Two weeks ago, a prominent Sacramento Republican filed a ballot initiative that would end the “winner-takes-all” system of granting California’s 55 electoral votes. The plan calls for two electoral votes to go to the statewide winner, while the remaining 53 electoral votes will be allocated based on the winner of each district.
Let’s put this in perspective: In 2004, President Bush won 22 districts in California, under the new system, Kerry would have receive 33 electoral votes, while Bush would receive 22 electoral votes and an electoral victory of 308 vs. 229.
If such a plan is passed, even if Democrats are able to gain the electoral votes of Ohio, which looks very likely at this point in time, such a win will be negated by a Republican candidate who could win as many a 20+ electoral votes from California. The Democratic candidate will have to fight for Florida and several southern states while holding on to states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which threaten to swing slightly to the right.
Considering how effectively certain interest groups were able to lobby against a redistricting reform initiative in California, I suspect an electoral vote allocation initiative is unlikely to pass, if only because enough non-Republicans will be made aware of the impact.
However, if this sort of a change were made in most of the large and mid-sized states simultaneously (although, preferably after de-gerrymandering the Congressional districts)…well, then I think the results would be far more acceptable.