Will MI correct the Electoral College bias towards Democrats?

[pbrower2a]

Go to national popular vote, split electoral votes proportionately in all states, or stick with the current winner-take-all by state system. Assigning electoral votes by Congressional district does more to confirm the artificial divisions of some states into gerrymandered districts than to represent the People.

Any trick that effectively distorts the result of the popular vote other than the well-recognized winner-take-all system will be seen as disenfranchising voters.

[pbrower2a]

Go to national popular vote, split electoral votes proportionately in all states, or stick with the current winner-take-all by state system. Assigning electoral votes by Congressional district does more to confirm the artificial divisions of some states into gerrymandered districts than to represent the People.

Any trick that effectively distorts the result of the popular vote other than the well-recognized winner-take-all system will be seen as disenfranchising voters.

The state-by-state winner take all method is well-recognized as "disenfranchising" voters.

In practice, yes -- in that large parts of the electorate become irrelevant in Presidential elections... such as blacks in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri; unionized workers in Indiana; non-Mormon voters in Utah; and Hispanics in Arizona and Texas who can be ignored once the primaries are over because their states are 'sure Republican'.  Likewise on the other side denizens of the rural parts of Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania who vote heavily Republican.

Did anyone realize that the state in which John McCain won the most votes was... California? McCain lost his third through seventh 'best' states for popular votes and his ninth through twelfth such states. On the other side, Barack Obama had Texas as the fourth-best state in total votes cast for him (indeed, he won more votes in Texas than in Illinois).   

There has been no effective Supreme Court challenge to winner-take-all in any state. Until there is such a challenge, the flawed system that we now have remains in practice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such would require either a Constitutionally-accepted compact among states wielding in the whole 270 or more electoral votes or a Constitutional amendment that would so order the votes of the states to be so distributed. Of course, what happens if a State governor is granted the prerogative to cast 50 million votes on behalf of the winner of his state? 
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously one needs protection against mass disenfranchisement of voters, phantom voting, and rigged elections at the state level (still possible).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such would have saved America lots of trouble in 2000; I think that many of us can imagine how different America would have been with President Al Gore. On the other side we have the potential of having a President who has won 270 electoral votes by narrowly winning enough states with narrow margins while losing most of the rest by margins characteristic of Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972. Imagine a President who lost the popular vote 52-47 yet won 273 electoral votes. (Invert that and that is how the US House of Representatives was in 2012).   

[pbrower2a]

Haha at Democrats panicking because they may lose EVs

Haha at Republicans panicking because they can't win a state fairly.

Because of ing Detroit tilting the whole state that would otherwise be a likely Republican state

Wrong. Michigan has given a plurality of votes to Democrats in each Presidential election beginning in 1992. Any scheme that would have given the majority of electoral votes in Michigan to the Republican Party in any subsequent election would be a gross distortion of the vote of Michiganders.

The split of congressional districts in Michigan (see also Ohio and Pennsylvania) is so designed that Democrats would need an effective majority of 55-45 or so for Democrats in the net vote for Congressional seats to break even in Congressional representation. Republican-designed reapportionment of districts has ensured that a small number of seats are easy wins for Democrats but all other districts have a clear built-in advantage for Republicans.

The worst possible result (short of a partisan governor deciding the electoral results on his whim) would be that districts allocate votes as they vote ion the Presidential race and that the winner of the majority of such districts gets the two other votes.

By the way -- why does a (presumably black and poor) vote in Detroit have less value than the vote of some rich farmer or executive? The vote is the only participation that anyone surely has irrespective of his economic plight. Government is responsible to the por as well as the rich lest one have a plutocratic oligarchy.

But keep pushing the agenda of the Koch syndicate and its legislative arm ALEC upon us all and your satisfaction at us liberals moaning and gnashing our teeth will soon be your nightmare, too. If black voters are the difference between democracy and fascism, then all hail the votes of black people who can keep American politics more moral than is the usual case of a plutocratic oligarchy.