I do not offer an interpretation of the virtues or demerits of the proposal.
I do find interesting how many posters interpret the proposal in light if how it will benefit or harm their political tribe.
The thing is, I've actually watched this over and over with all sorts of things. My Super Tuesday 1988 example is a good one.
When George Wallace routed five opponents in the 1972 Michigan primary with almost 51% of the vote, the Democrats freaked out and began eliminating winner-take-all contests. In 198 - after Reagan beat them and the GOP had a larger primary turnout than the Democrats (who had concocted a poll tax scheme for their party in the primary that lowered turnout)....and the Dems got control of both houses, they abolished the primary. The Republican moderates in the state were for this as well as the night Bush beat Reagan, the latter got enough delegates elsewhere to clinch the nomination. So the GOP decided that if the new caucus was earlier then it would force candidates to come to Michigan. What happened was Pat Robertson's group got ahold of a bunch of the local party apparatuses and stacked the committees with religious right folks. Robertson then tried to help rig the outcome with an alliance with Jack Kemp, who then fudged on it and made one with Bush, who wound up winning the contest that was so convoluted the press couldn't really explain it.
See there? Dems don't like the outcome so they change the system, Republican moderates don't like the outcome so THEY change the system, and then the national party double rigs the system to get rid of Pat Robertson, who has rigged it in his favor.
When McGovern ran for Prez in 1972, he stood up and DEMANDED that the winner take all rules be applied to the California delegation that would give him enough votes to win the nomination. Eight years later, the same stinking hypocrite stood up there - while working to depose Carter and elect Ted Kennedy - and had the gall to say that voters months ago could not be trusted to respond to changed circumstances.
I realize it's hard to believe but just 30 years ago the Northeastern USA was mostly Republican (MA was the exception) and so was the Left Coast. 50 years ago, the South was still mostly Democratic, including Texas.
I mean, it's already the blue states doing it. They already go blue. It won't mean anything unless you can get a bunch of swing states on board and more recent polling shows a shift in favor of the EC in the last 30 years than we used to have.
