Details
1) Dominic Pileggi, PA's Senate Majority Leader, created a plan what would have "electors chosen out of congressional districts with the remaining two going to the statewide winner."
2) Nebraska and Maine have abandoned the "winner-take-all system."
3) Candidates would only need to win a bare majority if this plan was to be put into effect.
4) A group called "All Votes Matter" has been pushing for this since May.
5) If the system changes, then PA will not be as important a state for electoral votes as before.
6) Voting turnout may quite possibly go down since the state does not have as great of an impact on the election.
7) "Many believe that the move to change PA's electoral vote apportionment was a proper Republican response to polls showing nationwide voter dismay over the present Electoral College system...."
8) Some Republicans are against the plan.
9) Even Nebraska Republicans are thinking of chainging their system.
10) People may get harrassed because of this (All Votes Matter doesn't disclose its donors "as a matter of policy, per the request of many of them," Gerow told Mother Jones. "It's their legal right not to have it disclosed, and they don't want it disclosed so they're not subject to media calls and other potential harassment," he added.)
Questions
1) What's so bad about this change if it goes into effect?
2) What is the reason for this change?
3) Why was it the "winner-take-all" system in the first place? (Who established this system?)
4) The souce of money counts in this situation?
5) How would this new system be unfair?
Additional source HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment