What if states' Electoral College votes didn't go in one block

[Stardust Mirror]

but were divided up proportionally by percentage of votes each candidate got?

Since it would be so difficult to abolish the Electoral College, maybe just make it democratic? Why would there be ~any~ rationale for not making it democratic?

Upside would be that candidate who lost the popular vote may not win the election?

[Voltaire2]

1. A small number of states do that, Maine and Nebraska?

The problem of course is if only majority Democratic states do this, we give up electoral votes. So if it isn't 'all in' it is just another disaster that the fascists will exploit.

[Stardust Mirror]

4. solution would be Federal law applying to all states?

Could that be done?

[Voltaire2]

5. I don't think it can.

I could be wrong, but I think the idiotic constitution leaves the mechanism of 'electing electors' up to each state. And of course this shitty fascist court is busy gutting voting rights and enabling state malfeasance in elections.

[Stardust Mirror]

6. could an individual sue his state

over claim that his/her votes are being diluted or something?

yes, State I live in, you can set rules for ~electing~ Electoral College reps but they have to vote like the state's voters did?

Wasn't a law passed like that right after the Civil War to prevent a state from doing what South Carolina did in the election that Lincoln won?

[Stardust Mirror]

7. this talks about that law, I guess I was wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act

[Sympthsical]

17. When it comes to choosing electors, the state's power is nearly absolute

They don't even have to have popular elections for electors. The legislature can just decide to appoint the electors themselves. Much as they used to appoint U.S. Senators instead of a popular vote. McPherson v. Blacker (1892) is a Supreme Court case addressing precisely this issue.

Of course, Congress has to accept them, which is a bit of a check on things.

So an individual voter suing isn't going to go anywhere. Any court is going to reply, "This is how your legislature set it up, as provided by the Constitution."

As far as the Electoral College Act of 1887, it hasn't really been tested significantly. There is some uncertainty about whether or not it's even constitutional. But since we've not yet needed it, no one really knows.

Guess that would depend what the courts do. Which, well, not an idea any of us cherish, I don't think.

[mvymvy]

15. Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote

Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.

2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill.

In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected

52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.”

31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” --- Maine’s current method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes

16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes

Recent campaigns have paid attention to Nebraska’s closely divided 2nd congressional district (the Omaha area), while totally ignoring the rural and politically non-competitive 1st and 3rd districts.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.
In 2021, after Biden won 1 electoral vote, another Republican sponsored bill to change to statewide winner-take-all was introduced, again,
In 2021, a Republican redistricting proposal would cleave off Democratic-leaning northwest Douglas County from a Nebraska congressional district that has been won by presidential and congressional Democrats at various points over the past decade.
In 2023, another bill was introduce to strike language in existing state law that divides Nebraska’s electoral votes by congressional districts in presidential elections, effectively implementing a winner-take-all system used by nearly every other state.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

[onenote]

16. Maine and Nebraska do not allocate electoral votes proportionately

Maine and Nebraska allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska).

If the votes were allocated proportionately, it would be necessary to "round" the numbers and if that was the case, Trump would have gotten two electoral votes in Maine in 2016 and again in 2020, not just one.

[MichMan]

2. At least one state already does

[Silent Type]

3. Two states have porportional electors. I think this has been discussed as one way to get around EC winner take all.

[mvymvy]

11. No state has proportional electors

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.

2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill.

In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected

52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.”

31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” --- Maine’s current method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes

16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes

Recent campaigns have paid attention to Nebraska’s closely divided 2nd congressional district (the Omaha area), while totally ignoring the rural and politically non-competitive 1st and 3rd districts.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.
In 2021, after Biden won 1 electoral vote, another Republican sponsored bill to change to statewide winner-take-all was introduced, again,
In 2021, a Republican redistricting proposal would cleave off Democratic-leaning northwest Douglas County from a Nebraska congressional district that has been won by presidential and congressional Democrats at various points over the past decade.
In 2023, another bill was introduce to strike language in existing state law that divides Nebraska’s electoral votes by congressional districts in presidential elections, effectively implementing a winner-take-all system used by nearly every other state.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

[RandomNumbers]

8. Another option is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Still well short of the 270 EVs needed, but getting there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Stardust Mirror]

9. interesting, thanks

How about reallocating how many electoral college votes each state gets, based on ~current~ population, but only counting self-proclaimed "white" people as 3/5ths of a person?

[mvymvy]

10. Increases risk of House deciding, regardless of any popular votes

Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.

[Stardust Mirror]

14. Thank you. That's why I asked - to get reasoned answers

Sincerely, thanks

[brooklynite]

12. Why would a State that doesn't want to give up the EC agree to district their EC votes proportionally?

[haele]

13. Get rid of gerrymandering, and we'll talk about it.

But for the time being, votes in a state block are the only thing that keeps us from a permanent Republican Presidency.

Land will end up counting, rather than actual votes.

Haele

[inthewind21]

18. Gerrymandering

has zero impact on electing POTUS and Senators. Only the House.

[haele]

20. However, if you split up the EC votes proportionally, gerrymandering will affect the count.

Right now, gerrymandering does not affect the EC as it's Winner Take All in all but Maine and Nebraska.
But turn all the EC into proportional electors, and you find out that due to gerrymandering, in the current system with the number of electors the same as the number of House representatives, you're going to end up with basically the House determining the outcome of a Presidential election.

Haele

[In It to Win It]

19. If you think gerrymandered districts are bad now, it'll get worse if the Presidency depends on it

unless I'm misinterpreting what you mean.