I don’t think that a move from focusing on a handful of swing states and ignoring the rest (even if the set of swing states evolves a bit over time) to focusing on a few dozen swing districts and ignoring the rest is really a step forward. Proportional distribution would be better, if you don’t want to sign on to the National Popular Vote Compact.

Posted by KCinDC on 16 December 02008 @ 2am

NC makes the most sense geographically, as well as the electoral makeup of the state. Lots of rural Republican Appalachian districts, as well as plenty of mid-sized Dem-heavy cities. Presidential candidates (and their surrogates) making campaign stops in one state could easily hop to the next.

I like it.

Posted by Brent Finnegan on 16 December 02008 @ 9am

Breaking up electoral votes by district is even worse than the system we have now. Remember who draws the districts! Do you trust the “buddy” legislature to be as fair with the districts as you are?

Posted by Kenton Ngo on 16 December 02008 @ 9pm

I’ve never bought into the notion that the system is bad, therefore we should operate outside of it. That’s a lot like the line of thinking that’s used against non-partisan redistricting: redistricting will always be partisan, there’s no such thing as non-partisan, so let’s not even try. FWIW, Republicans drew some pretty partisan lines here in 2001, and the majority of our delegation is Democratic.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 December 02008 @ 10pm

What’s to be gained by splitting votes by congressional district instead of by state? Why is this better than joining the National Popular Vote Compact and working towards a national popular vote?

I actually have to agree that splitting national votes by congressional district further entrench dominant powers since congressional districts get redrawn fairly often (rather than state borders, which get redrawn somewhat less frequently). So, why settle on the middle ground which is more easily politically gamed?

Posted by Ben C. on 17 December 02008 @ 10am