Yeah, check my post again. I realized I hadn't included that, and added it before I saw your post. It'll never work with gerrymandering. The current system is better than that, certainly for the State of Texas. Austin, as you know, used to have its own representative. It was traditional during redistricting to give large cities their own district. DeLay and the Republicans in the Lege put paid to that tradition, along with so much else, particularly the comity which used to be the norm. Members of different parties used to be friends outside of their respective chambers. That was very common. Not too common any longer.
This is incorrect. There are a few states that would go 3-0. With a little campaigning, it would easily go 2-1. There are also a few states that would go 5-3 or 4-1 and with a little campaigning, it would inch over a few electoral votes. But for the most part, states seem to be split with a 60/40 ratio. The goal is not to flip states to the other side. It is to empower the people to get out and vote, so they actually feel their vote really counts.
Besides DC, there's no place that would have been 3-0 in the last election. Neither Dakota broke 60% for Romney and Vermont and Delaware on Obama's side would also have been 2-1. Utah is the most conservative state in the US and got 73% for Romney (add in that he's Mormon). So there's nowhere that should ever go 4-1 (80%). So every 5 EV state should go 3-2; every 6 EV state should go 4-2 (assuming you give the popular vote winner an automatic "win"). For a 7 EV state to get 5-2, they'd need 71% of the vote - only Utah would have qualified, so every 7 EV state would go 4-3. Every 8 EV state would go 5-3 since 6-2 would require 75%.
