What if Electoral College votes were split proportional to popular vote per state?

[emilynghiem]

Dear USMB and Political Friends:
My friend Lonnie and I disagree on the Electoral College.
He thinks it should be eliminated all together, and just use popular vote only.
We both agree it defeats the whole purpose of the Electoral College, which is to
include all states, if the candidates start targeting just the swing states to get all their votes from the other candidate.

I say it should be reformed, where the winners does not take all the votes per state
but the % that reflects the proportion of the popular vote they actually won per state. So this would fulfill the purpose of the EC, which is to make sure all states are included regardless of population. It would still be by percentage, and would still reward the candidate winning the most popular votes, but would include all states equally by "proportion" of their population voting this way or that way, REGARDLESS of what size their population is compared with other states.

What do you think of this idea?

And since the 2012 election will be close to 50/50
would you sign a petition to the College Electors to vote by proportion
instead of winner takes all?

I would love to get your input and ideas.
Thank you very much!
Emily Nghiem

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess I should add an option to post if you are voting Democrat or Republican!
it seems the Electoral system favors Democrats this time in the swing states,
but if the vote were split by proportion that favors Republicans overall.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

What is the difference between a "proportional" Electoral College and eliminating the Electoral College completely and using just the popular vote?

If you are going to divide up the Electoral College votes in every state based on the statewide percentage of votes for one candidate or the other, then you have totally defeated the purpose of the Electoral College.

You end up with mostly Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas determining who the President will be every four years, and the rest of the votes from rural areas and smaller cities and towns won't matter.

I don't want a handful of highly populated states determining who will be President every four years.

 

[Sarg]

The Electoral College guards against several things.

Foremost among them is the relative ease of driving up turnout in big urban centers. Rent a few buses, offer free lunch, cruise up and down the streets dragging people to the polls. That's difficult in suburbs. The EC greatly decreases the utility of running up numbers in New York City, Los Angeles, Austin, Chicago, etc. Granted, it doesn't protect against the same in Philly and Cleveland, but it does allow campaigns with limited resources to focus turnout operations on their suburbs.

Second, the EC offers a small inherent benefit to taking positions that appeal in larger numbers of states.

Third, the EC prevents the need for national recounts. Imagine a Florida 2000 ... but with every precinct in the whole country. No close election would ever be decided by the voters - it'd come down to lawyers every time it was within 3 points.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Actually Nebraska and Maine can legally split their electoral votes. they are the only two states to allow this.

The E C was placed there for a purpose. I have to agree with that purpose....

 

[gallantwarrior]

The Electoral College guards against several things.

Foremost among them is the relative ease of driving up turnout in big urban centers. Rent a few buses, offer free lunch, cruise up and down the streets dragging people to the polls. That's difficult in suburbs. The EC greatly decreases the utility of running up numbers in New York City, Los Angeles, Austin, Chicago, etc. Granted, it doesn't protect against the same in Philly and Cleveland, but it does allow campaigns with limited resources to focus turnout operations on their suburbs.

Second, the EC offers a small inherent benefit to taking positions that appeal in larger numbers of states.

Third, the EC prevents the need for national recounts. Imagine a Florida 2000 ... but with every precinct in the whole country. No close election would ever be decided by the voters - it'd come down to lawyers every time it was within 3 points.

Under the current system where it's "winner takes all" of the electoral votes from one state, the urban areas are controlling election outcomes. And candidates only lobby in a few key EC states. The rest of the electorate might as well be dogshit on their shoes.
The key reason that the EC was created is long past now, that being a geographically wide-spread electorate with limited transportation. Localized regions would elect a man to represent them at national elections, to cast 'their' vote as directed. With our technology, we are able to establish a more accurate 'one person, one vote' type of system that would more fairly reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate. So, to abolish the EC altogether is not unrealistic. If politically expedient to retain the EC, then the votes should be divided proportionally among all candidates. Some states do divide EC votes proportionally, I believe.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Without the EC my vote wouldn't count at all...... Many of the rural people could just stop voting and accept what the big metro areas decide.

We still need the EC.......

 

[Charles_Main]

Dear USMB and Political Friends:
My friend Lonnie and I disagree on the Electoral College.
He thinks it should be eliminated all together, and just use popular vote only.
We both agree it defeats the whole purpose of the Electoral College, which is to
include all states, if the candidates start targeting just the swing states to get all their votes from the other candidate.

I say it should be reformed, where the winners does not take all the votes per state
but the % that reflects the proportion of the popular vote they actually won per state. So this would fulfill the purpose of the EC, which is to make sure all states are included regardless of population. It would still be by percentage, and would still reward the candidate winning the most popular votes, but would include all states equally by "proportion" of their population voting this way or that way, REGARDLESS of what size their population is compared with other states.

What do you think of this idea?

And since the 2012 election will be close to 50/50
would you sign a petition to the College Electors to vote by proportion
instead of winner takes all?

I would love to get your input and ideas.
Thank you very much!
Emily Nghiem

To do what you want would eliminate the very purpose of the EC.

 

[Sarg]

The key reason that the EC was created is long past now, that being a geographically wide-spread electorate with limited transportation. Localized regions would elect a man to represent them at national elections, to cast 'their' vote as directed. With our technology, we are able to establish a more accurate 'one person, one vote' type of system that would more fairly reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

That's not the reason the EC was created. The EC was created for the same reason the Senate was - to prevent "one person, one vote" from being the only consideration. It is precisely to force a diversity of approachedsin the presidential campaign. I assure you the campaigns aren't running the same style in Iowa, Florida and Ohio this cycle.

 

[jillian]

What is the difference between a "proportional" Electoral College and eliminating the Electoral College completely and using just the popular vote?

If you are going to divide up the Electoral College votes in every state based on the statewide percentage of votes for one candidate or the other, then you have totally defeated the purpose of the Electoral College.

You end up with mostly Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas determining who the President will be every four years, and the rest of the votes from rural areas and smaller cities and towns won't matter.

I don't want a handful of highly populated states determining who will be President every four years.

in other words, you want to win and don't care if more people think your guy is nuts.

i've always wondered why someone in idaho should have a greater proportionate effect on an election than me.

 

[Two Thumbs]

With the EC, we have candidates concentrating on battle ground states, to the point of nearly ignoring in the pocket states.

w/o the EC, candidates would spend most of their time in cities, where they can get the most out of their time and money.

It really should be one man one vote.

on top of that, the ec is corrupt. every time we hear about how things seemingly go wrong.

 

[jwoodie]

The EC was created to reflect a Federal government in which individual State legislatures voted for the President. (The Constitution was later amended to provide for a popular vote within each State.) The number of electoral votes assigned to each State (number of Representatives plus two Senators) mirrored the bicameral Congressional compromise between large and small States.)

The most important reason for keeping the EC is to confine potential election fraud to individual States. Otherwise, L.A., Chicago and New York could simply manufacture enough votes to swing a national election.

 

[emilynghiem]

What is the difference between a "proportional" Electoral College and eliminating the Electoral College completely and using just the popular vote?

If, for example, all states have 10 EC votes each.
Then you can't just lobby the two largest populations in the two largest states to get the most votes overall.

You would have to spread out the votes to collect as many electoral votes from as many states as you could.

You might still flock to the largest cities PER STATE, as is happening now.
But you would not just focus on the largest cities in the nation leaving out the other states altogether that have the same # of EC votes.

But lobbying for majority of the vote in Texas, or Rhode Island, or Hawaii would be the same if all the states have the same # of votes, and you get up to 10 points per state by %.

This idea could be adjusted, where instead of all states being equal at 10 points, some states could have more or less; but not so drastic that the small states are left out and the big states are lobbied more than others. Maybe a small difference to make them more equal.

P.S. The other idea I would like to explore is the winning candidate requiring majority of BOTH the popular vote AND the electoral vote to win. But to avoid the need for a runoff, any other additional parties besides the top two would need to be eliminated using some kind of system BEFORE the election, so that requires more work to develop so that third parties can still use elections for publicizing ideas or issues to influence the public, govt and major parties. By requiring candidates to win BOTH, it would address concerns on both sides (of not voiding popular votes by keeping the electoral college, and NOT turning unfair focus only on the most populous cities or states if the elector college is removed). If you win both types of votes, there is no question you have the majority.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually Nebraska and Maine can legally split their electoral votes. they are the only two states to allow this.

The E C was placed there for a purpose. I have to agree with that purpose....

I thought the Electors could vote their conscience.
They pledge to vote for the candidate that reflects the state's popular vote.
But I thought legally they could vote freely, as that is their job to serve as a check on the vote, and if for some reason they feel there is an anomaly or reason for voting otherwise, that is their job to make that determination.

 

[emilynghiem]

The key reason that the EC was created is long past now, that being a geographically wide-spread electorate with limited transportation. Localized regions would elect a man to represent them at national elections, to cast 'their' vote as directed. With our technology, we are able to establish a more accurate 'one person, one vote' type of system that would more fairly reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate. So, to abolish the EC altogether is not unrealistic. If politically expedient to retain the EC, then the votes should be divided proportionally among all candidates. Some states do divide EC votes proportionally, I believe.

Dear GW: A friend at work also cited the geographic/transportation/communication limitations back then in history. He said the same thing, that today's technology eliminates that issue. His opinion on the EC was to keep it, so it serves its purpose. He did NOT agree to the idea of proportional splitting but he said Electors are free to vote however they wish.
They do not necessarily need to vote for the Candidate or Party that is expected.

He said he would rather change the dynamic of the state relations with federal govt, and put more emphasis on states checking or preventing federal overreaching. So he visualized other ways to strengthen state representation in govt decisions, and leaving the EC as is.

 

[Sarg]

If, for example, all states have 10 EC votes each.
Then you can't just lobby the two largest populations in the two largest states to get the most votes overall.

...

But lobbying for majority of the vote in Texas, or Rhode Island, or Hawaii would be the same if all the states have the same # of votes, and you get up to 10 points per state by %.

It doesn't do what you want it to do. Under this system, you'd actually get landslides from Republicans due to southern/western support. 75% in tiny Wyoming offsets 65% support from California?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Give the popular majority to the two senatorial votes.

Give the Congressional district electoral votes to the party that wins the district.

Thus, a state with a GOP majority gets the two senator's votes and whatever congressional districts go Dem or Pub are awarded accordingly.

Unsubscribe.

 

[candycorn]

Dear USMB and Political Friends:
My friend Lonnie and I disagree on the Electoral College.
He thinks it should be eliminated all together, and just use popular vote only.
We both agree it defeats the whole purpose of the Electoral College, which is to
include all states, if the candidates start targeting just the swing states to get all their votes from the other candidate.

I say it should be reformed, where the winners does not take all the votes per state
but the % that reflects the proportion of the popular vote they actually won per state. So this would fulfill the purpose of the EC, which is to make sure all states are included regardless of population. It would still be by percentage, and would still reward the candidate winning the most popular votes, but would include all states equally by "proportion" of their population voting this way or that way, REGARDLESS of what size their population is compared with other states.

What do you think of this idea?

And since the 2012 election will be close to 50/50
would you sign a petition to the College Electors to vote by proportion
instead of winner takes all?

I would love to get your input and ideas.
Thank you very much!
Emily Nghiem

The best idea I have heard is that whomever wins should have to win both the current configuration of the Electoral College AND the popular vote. Anything less and the current "plan B" kicks in of the House electing the President and the Senate electing the VP.

The idea appeals to me because it does keeps the candidates in the shackles of having to pay attention to smaller states such as Nevada and Iowa. At the same time, it speaks to the basic fairness that the person who becomes the leader of the country should get the plurality of the votes cast by the voters.

 

[expatriate]

Each state has electors equal to the total of its senators and representatives. Why not award the two electoral votes representing the senators to the candidate with the highest overall total in the state, and then award each electoral vote for the representatives based upon which candidate won that district? The unbalance towards smaller states created by giving every state two votes regardless of their size would still be maintained, and the rest of the electoral college would be more representative of the wishes of the people.

 

[Sallow]

The EC should be done away with.

Bad idea in modern times.

The Majority should pick the President.