When one side (guess which one) decides to change things around, it’s called “progressive”, “forward”, or even “change” going off of Obama’s campaign slogan.
When the opposing side decides to change things around, it’s called “unfair”, “evil”, or any synonym for nefarious.
For instance, a plan to change state electoral vote systems to reflect Nebraska and Maine, which are not winner-take-all, is defined by Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress as an “election-rigging plan”.
Example:
In 2011, both Pileggi and Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) backed the original Republican Plan to rig the presidential election by tying electoral votes to congressional districts.
Rigging the presidential election…by making the electoral vote more popular.
Instead of a state’s majority going to one candidate, it would be divided into votes for one candidate and votes for another based along popular vote lines. The Left supports a popular vote (since Gore lost in 2000) but hates this plan, even though this is a step towards a better-represented, more popular vote.
Why?
Because states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, the most “purple” states in the Union, would not have all of their votes go to one candidate (who is usually a Democrat now).
Let’s get this straight:
- Eliminate the electoral college, institute popular vote = good! (it could’ve gotten Gore in 2000!)
- Institute a popular electoral college vote so that state totals reflect popular vote totals within each of the state’s congressional districts = bad! [it could’ve gotten Romney in 2012 🙁 ]
That one side I mentioned at the beginning? It’s clear that they’re in favor of the people…only if the people are in favor of them.
