The misapportion of EC votes is not nearly as big of a sin as the winner-take-all part of the electoral college. Indeed Trump still would have won 2016 if CA had 12% of EC votes, WY 0.6% etc.
This analysis misses the forest for the trees. Yes, this is a flaw in the EC that ends up being a wash in partisan advantage. But the main flaw that causes divergence from the popular vote is not.
It’s certainly true that the impact of apportionment is smaller compared to a winner take all system at the state level. However, it’s basically impossible to credibly analyze WTA vs proportional or popular vote because hundreds of millions of dollars and people-hours would be deployed very differently by both sides. State-level WTA is the only system under which we have results to analyze, so we have to grant its logic. What you’re describing may be a “truer” analysis in a sense, but it’s inaccessible.
The misapportion of EC votes is not nearly as big of a sin as the winner-take-all part of the electoral college. Indeed Trump still would have won 2016 if CA had 12% of EC votes, WY 0.6% etc.
This analysis misses the forest for the trees. Yes, this is a flaw in the EC that ends up being a wash in partisan advantage. But the main flaw that causes divergence from the popular vote is not.
It’s certainly true that the impact of apportionment is smaller compared to a winner take all system at the state level. However, it’s basically impossible to credibly analyze WTA vs proportional or popular vote because hundreds of millions of dollars and people-hours would be deployed very differently by both sides. State-level WTA is the only system under which we have results to analyze, so we have to grant its logic. What you’re describing may be a “truer” analysis in a sense, but it’s inaccessible.