In defence of the Electoral College: follow-up

Some timely links regarding my points made earlier about the effect of the winner-take-all method of awarding states’ electoral votes:

#1: conservative commentator Rich Lowry passes on an email from a Republican activist complaining about the winner-take-all system (which the writer erroneously claims was implemented by fin-de-siècle progressives). He goes on to whinge that a) Bush-43 had to promise steel tariffs to win West Virginia in 2000 (but surely that was more for Pennsylvanian consumption); b) Obama could close West Virginian coal mines because it had become a safe GOP state; c) Obama ignored the Gulf oil spill because Louisiana wasn’t a swing state; d) having elections contested in fewer states makes it easier for Big Gummint Librulz to “buy off a few select voters”; and e) rural voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania are “dictate[d]” to by Detroit and Philly. This litany of complaints has been rehashed on the American right ever since FDR and Truman began carrying large northern states by winning over racial minorities and union members.

#2: after failing yet again to carry Pennsylvania, Republicans there are again pushing to move the state away from the winner-take-all system. Last year they floated the idea of changing to the Maine/Nebraska method (one vote per congressional district plus two to the statewide winner); this time they want to allocate eighteen votes proportionally and the bonus two to the statewide winner.