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

[SFC Ollie]

The majority is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.

But you know that.........

 

[alan1]

Each state decides how their electoral votes are given.
Most states go 'winner take all', but some states allocate them on a proportion basis. I wish CA and NY were on the proportion allocation method.

 

[Sallow]

The majority is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.

But you know that.........

No it's not.

But I do like a good lamb cutlet now and again..

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

I'm thinking we should return to our Nation's founding and whoever wins the most votes is president, whoever wins the second largest number of votes is then vice-president.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

That is technically true, but not done.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Your friend is not wrong. The federal government has suborned much of the states rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I agree that we should return to the basis of the Constitution limiting federal government functions to a very few and allowing each state to govern itself as seen fit. If someone doesn't like how things are done in the State in which they live they can either campaign to change it or move to another State that provides what they prefer.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

That suggestion doesn't seem too unreasonable.

 

[candycorn]

The EC should be done away with.

Bad idea in modern times.

The Majority should pick the President.

You mean plurality right? Majority means over 50%. That would mean national run-offs. I'm not in favor of that.

 

[Politico]

You think people wanting a piece o' teet is bad now?

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Then adjust the EC votes so it is more fair.

CA can still have more total EC votes than Wyoming.
Just not such wide differences that the same states get targeted for having a lot more votes.

Actually I would support an added system of representation where the two major parties train candidates for different roles and positions, depending on leadership style, so they don't compete with each other for the same positions. If the Dems train the public servants who specialize in "intake" from constituents, like grievances and feedback to shape or start legislation, then that type of representation definitely needs to be broadbased, including all minority interests and all parties, and appealing to the masses in order to protect all citizens equally. And the GOP takes on training for roles that limit or edit the bills to the minimum needed to prevent bureaucracy and to promote efficiency. So those two would balance each other, where laws based on consensus between the input team and the output team would have to address the issues and solve the problems in order to satisfy and represent parties equally. While the Greens would help organize people by affiliation party or issue, assist or train in mediation between them to resolve conflicts, and identify areas or issues causing the political process to deadlock so the problems can be solved. Something like that.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm thinking we should return to our Nation's founding and whoever wins the most votes is president, whoever wins the second largest number of votes is then vice-president.

I have been saying the same thing, except for the risk of people trying to get rid of the President if they want their VP to move up. Either by assassination threats or campaigning to impeach, etc. if the two candidates are not on amicable terms as is ideal.

If they are on amicable terms, I prefer they run on the SAME ticket to begin with.
This would certainly save on campaign costs!

Why not have a training ground, such as developing city-states along the border to create secure military bases and communities around them, some with dual-citizenship with Mexico, in order to train future leaders in all areas of governance from local to international.

And then groom successful candidates to form teams across party lines and run for office that way. Where you can see how well they work together, and vote based on performance record.

We could still have competing groups, pairs of candidates from mixed parties running for office. But I agree the Pres. and VP should ideally be of mixed parties to represent the nation and to ensure the parties will work together instead of against each other.

We would have to change the political landscape first, to get rid of this bullying attitude, and maybe we could have mixed tickets instead of this nonsense of one party dominating others.

 

[emilynghiem]

I like the idea from the replies of two different posters, of using the Senate votes for the Majority of the State,
and using the District votes for the majority of that District. Is there any political group pushing for such legislation to change this?

RE: avoiding run-offs

The EC should be done away with.

Bad idea in modern times.

The Majority should pick the President.

You mean plurality right? Majority means over 50%. That would mean national run-offs. I'm not in favor of that.

Unless there is a preliminary system of reducing the candidates before the election to just the top two getting at least 40-50% of the votes. Some step between each party having its nomination or convention delegates process, and the national election. That way, maybe these other parties could equally participate in national debates on this preliminary level, if the role of third parties is to influence the other candidates, parties or govt legislation.

If the third parties want to pay for the costs of having an intermediate level of national debates and elimination voting before the final election, could this be an option to give a voice to third parties? Would it still give third parties the ability to PRESSURE candidates not to lose votes to the other party over certain issues, by giving them access to national debates? Or would it eliminate the pressure third parties can currently exert on major parties not to risk splitting the votes where they lose to the other party that isn't split?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes, I agree the winning candidate should win both.
When I tell this to people, very few have agreed but it makes sense to me.