• FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Agreed. It’s a fabulous idea, but I’m pretty sure only one state awards electoral votes proportionally.

    With 2/3 of the states controlled by fascists and their enablers, it is sadly never going to happen.

    We are not in a democracy, no matter how much people love to use the D word.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s a good thing the community is called “FairVote Canada”. It’s not a good thing that Canada’s current political leader is more of a showboy than a politician.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      two states, nebraska and maine, distribute some electoral college votes by congressional district.

      but even if the so-called ‘wyoming rule’ was in play, where the smallest state dictated the size of a congressional district and the increased size of the house of representatives as a result—no presidential election outcome would have changed, with the possible exception of 2000 (which was decided by scrotus, not votes).

    • LemoineFairclough@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      It seems the first time PR was used was in 1855. Canada and the USA are late (it seems that most of the places I’d be okay with living use proportional representation), but catching up sooner would be better than catching up later!

      I’ll draw a parallel to another revolution: supposedly only two wars were fought to end slavery, in the USA and Haiti (everywhere else seems to have banned slavery with just legislation and compensation, for example in Britain), and I’d rather keep the number of wars over proportional representation at 0 rather than risking having a higher number, so advocating emphatically is important regardless of circumstances.