Proportional Electoral votes or winner take all????

[Lucky Luciano]

For the purposes of this post, please assume that an electoral college is required even though it is unjust!


If we must have an electoral college, then it cannot be based on a proportional representaion of voters in each state or else most of the time the votes are closer than 55-45 and most states would split their electoral votes evenly between the two candidates if there are an even number of EVs or with one candidate taking one extra vote if there are an odd number of EVs. Winner take all stinks too, so the only alterntive seems to be what Nebraska and Maine do. They give two of their votes based on the popular vote of the state - these represent the senate votes in the electoral college. For the remaining votes, these are decided by the popular vote in each individual congressional district. What really needs to be done is that we just go by the popular vote nationally, but that is another story. In lieu of that, I would suggest that each state adopt Nebraska and Maine's method.

Reason that we cannot give a proportion of a states EVs based on the popular vote in each state (I cut and paste this from another post I made, but I wanted feedback):


The reason is that all states will almost always be decided by one EV - and if the state has an even number of EVs, then it may always be a wash! Only in states like CA, NY, TX, and maybe the next two big states will there be a reasonable chance of winning by more than two votes, but even then, it will not be by much more than three. The result is that each state outside of the top five is given one or no votes whether it is Ohio or Wyoming - and I am sorry to say that this is nowhere NEAR being representative of the popular vote for the country as a whole. This is a bad idea. Only the total disbanding of the electoral colelge is a good idea.

Here is how many 'effective' electoral votes each state will have. I have given states with an even number of EVs zero because it will usually be split evenly...with an odd number they get one, except for the large state that will have up to three because splitting 55 votes for say california could actually come down to being 29 to 26 based on a proportionate system, but not usually more of a difference than that. The first number is actual EVs and the last effective EVs with such a proposed system:
EVs Effective EVs
AL 9 1
AK 3 1
AR 10 0
AZ 6 0
CA 55 1, 3, or 5
CO 9 1
CT 7 1
DE 3 1
DC 3 1
FL 27 1 or 3
GA 15 1
HI 4 0
ID 4 0
IL 21 1 or 3
IN 11 1
IA 7 1
KS 6 0
KY 8 0
LA 9 1
ME 4 0
MD 10 0
MA 12 0
MI 17 1
MN 10 0
MS 6 0
MO 11 1
MT 3 1
NE 5 1
NV 5 1
NH 4 0
NJ 15 1
NM 5 1
NY 31 1 or 3
NC 15 1
ND 3 1
OH 20 0 or 2 (52.5% to 47.5% makes it 11-9 in EVs by rounding to 55% to 45%)
OK 7 1
OR 7 1
PA 21 1 or 3
RI 4 0
SC 8 0
SD 3 1
TN 11 1
TX 34 0 or 2
UT 5 1
VT 3 1
VA 13 1
WA 11 1
WV 5 1
WI 10 0
WY 3 1

So this system would give WY with one effective EV (EEV) more representation than WI with 10 EVs since WI would have 0 EEVs (Most of the time WI will be split 5-5 giving it no representation while WY would ALWAYS be 2-1 giving it one EEV). Minnesota and Massachusetts would be trivialized too...this system would give a gross overrepresentation to rural areas and utterly trivialize large population centers. Only a popular vote should matter, but if we must use the electoral college, then we should stick with the current system that is winner take all in most states.

What do people think?

[WI_DEM]

1. abolish the electoral college altogether

and base who is president on who wins the popular vote--period.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. Well yes of course,

but I wanted to explain why the proportional system of EVs is screwed up too because of another debate I was having.

What are your opinions if we assume that an electoral college is required.

(of course an electoral college sucks because it gives overrepresentation to the rural voters thus trivializing my vote)

[Blue Wally]

3. I like the Maine method

You get one vote for carrying a congressional district and two bonus votes for carrying an entire state.

[ldf]

4. it the electoral vote becomes proportional

it is just a reflection of the popular vote.

therefore, why bother with the EC at all, if that is the result.

and that SHOULD BE the result.

popular vote carries. no state should get "special rights" through "special representation" by the EC.

may have made sense 200 years ago (and that could be argued..), but not now.

[Lucky Luciano]

7. I see your point...

if we go proportional on the EC, then we may as well just throw out the college altogether. However, if we keep the college and go proportional, then I say that it will be a VERY BAD representation of the popular vote for the reasons given. Like my example of Wyoming always being decided as 2-1 and Massachusetts always being 6-6 rendering MA worthless from an EV point of view.


The reason I brought this up is because of a proposal in Colorado to do the proportional representation thing which would ALWAYS make CO decided 5-4 in favor of whoever wins that state giving it only one electoral vote when it comes down to it. (For CO to be 6-3, one candidate would have to score at least 61.2% based on rounding to 66.7% of the vote which is very rare).

[Darranar]

12. Because getting rid of the EC would require a constitutional amendment...

while this would not.

[Prodemsouth]

5. Proportional Electoral votes would have also meant a President Gore

if we had in 2000. Either abolishment of the electoral college or proportional rep. is better. But proportional might be a easier sell to state legislatures than total abolishment of electoral college.

[Lucky Luciano]

9. Don't be so sure

for example bush and gore would have both gotten 6 votes from MA. The total number of effective elector votes based on my analysis is between 34 and 40.

I just reviewed the 2000 election quickly and b*sh would have won using the proportionate electoral system because of winning an effective electoral vote in WY or UT or SD or ND when there are not many of these to go around. I did also find that in many states the election was nowhere near close and that there are more effective electoral votes than I forst though, but a quick analysis using my mental arithmetic (which I am good at) showed b*sh getting 43 effective electoral votes to Gore's 37.

Only the methods of Maine and Nebraska would work fairly if we assume the use of a college.


better still, is of course the removal of the college and use of only the popular vote.

[Prodemsouth]

11. Are you counting the major metorpolitain areas of certain states.

n/t

[wuushew]

6. The popular vote should be multiplied by smallness of the state

A straight popular vote would dis-empower the smaller states. The Executive branch would be emulating the House instead of being a neutral companion to the two branches of Congress.

[Jim__]

8. I don't believe Wi would have 0 EEV

WI gets to decide how its Electors are chosen:

Article II Section1:

...

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So, Wi would only have 0 EEV if it chose this fate for itself - which seems unlikely. I am curious as to what are the EEVs for NE and ME; since they have some form of proportional representation. Have they made their effective contribution to the Presidential tally 0?

The second thought is that it would take a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College and those small states that are currently disproportionately represented in this college, I believe, have the power to block such an amendment to the Constitution.

[Lucky Luciano]

10. Well the whole EEV thing is based

on using the states popular vote to give a proportion of the electoral votes to the candidates. I am not assuming anything about state constitutions - just that they all decide to use the proportionate system - which is not in place anywhere as of yet.

WI would then get 0 EEV under such a proportionate system, since most of the time the votes would be 5-5 giving no candidate an edge.

Maine and Nebraska simply give two votyes to the winner of the state - those are the senate in the electoral college. For the house portion, they decide the electoral votes based on the popular vote within each congressional district, so this is not really a proportionate method either.