“Republicans, again, want to change California’s way of allocating Electoral College votes, from winner-take-all to loser-can-get-some-too, based on Congressional districts. Politics aside, what’s better: winner take all or proportional representation?”
Politics aside? That’s like putting oxygen aside.
Abolish the Electoral College and this won’t ever be an issue.
When I ran (and lost) for kindergarten class president, winner take all worked fine. Damn that Kenny Purtle!
Philosophically, I guess you could make a case either way. But changes must be done nationally and uniformly, covering all states, not with one just mega-state that could shift an election outcome. This all about political chicanery by the Republicans, because they’re apoplectic about losing the White House next year.
Proportional is clearly fairer and, with a big state like California, it’s also fairer for the nation.
If we’re going to change the system so it’s fair all around, the way to do it is just count all the votes–nationally. Fiddling with electoral count in one state is nothing more than an attempt to unfairly skew the system so the minority party has a better chance of winning.
If proportional representation is so bad, then Torres and gang better be making the case in Maine and Nebraska, too.
It takes the fundamental problem with the Electoral College and spreads it across 435 congressional districts. Since when does making a bad problem worse qualify as a “solution” to anything?