“As implemented” may be a keyword here - how much better does it get if states went to proportional EC awarding instead of winner-take all? (by state, not talking about the national popular vote compact floating around). That’s in the purview of individual states, I think?
I’d say that they made a mistake in having a unitary executive, rather than a prime minister selected by the legislature. That seems a much better system.
For offices that people vote for, they also should have ranked choice voting and runoffs, rather than first past the post and party nominations.
And, in this partnership, how much sovereignty has been given up by the countries?
Do they still print their own money? Is there are tax on individuals levied by the partnership? Can they declare war on eachother, or on other nations outside? Can they restrict immigration from other countries of this partnership? Can they allow immigration from countries outside of this partnership? Can they regulate trade between themselves and other nations in this partnership? Can they form their own trade alliances with countries outside of the partnership? Does the partnership have the ability to impose laws on the countries, or to repeal laws that those countries have passed?
If the answer to any of those is “No”, and I would assume that in most international compacts, most of them would be, then it is a very different situation, and not really comparable to the US.
I’m not going to disagree, but either way, since the hypothetical legislature is bicameral with a “1 vote per state” component, a prime minister selected by the legislature would also be subject to the same “unfairness” criteria.
Since this hypothetical is an intentional parallel of the formation of the US, answer the questions however you feel best reflects that.
It depends on how you apportion the votes among districts. Let’s assume every state create equally sized districts, one for each electoral vote. I’m getting 13.05%… somebody better check my math. I’m in a rush but I’ll check it myself later.
But yes, it is in the purview of individual state legislatures to award electoral votes however they want, provided they abide by other constitutional provisions like the equal protection clause.
Details
We need to reorder all the states by votes to win by district. This involves two new columns:
- District Turnout = Turnout / EC Votes
- Votes to Win District = FLOOR(District Turnout / 2) + 1
Table 3: Hypothetical 2016 District-By-District Data
State|EC Votes|Turnout|Turnout per District|Votes to Win per District
—|---|—
Wyoming|3|252,653|84,218|42,110
Alaska|3|275,975|91,992|45,997
District of Columbia|3|282,871|94,291|47,146
Vermont|3|301,871|100,624|50,313
North Dakota|3|320,232|106,744|53,373
Maine|4|447,691|111,923|55,962
Rhode Island|4|474,751|118,688|59,345
Delaware|3|440,626|146,876|73,439
South Dakota|3|441,821|147,274|73,638
New Hampshire|4|616,292|154,073|77,037
West Virginia|5|802,589|160,518|80,260
Hawaii|4|653,295|163,324|81,663
Nebraska|5|835,857|167,172|83,587
Montana|3|516,329|172,110|86,056
Idaho|4|690,690|172,673|86,337
Nevada|6|1,131,836|188,640|94,321
Utah|6|1,167,245|194,541|97,271
New Mexico|5|1,001,728|200,346|100,174
Kansas|6|1,232,415|205,403|102,702
Georgia|16|3,556,541|222,284|111,143
Maryland|10|2,283,341|228,335|114,168
Tennessee|11|2,567,630|233,421|116,711
South Carolina|9|2,129,128|236,570|118,286
Michigan|16|3,814,203|238,388|119,195
Oregon|7|1,669,344|238,478|119,240
Connecticut|7|1,671,046|238,721|119,361
Mississippi|6|1,454,984|242,498|121,250
Wisconsin|10|2,433,920|243,392|121,697
New Jersey|14|3,409,743|243,554|121,778
Alabama|9|2,266,733|251,860|125,931
Arkansas|6|1,513,049|252,175|126,088
Florida|29|7,329,735|252,750|126,376
Kentucky|8|2,041,665|255,209|127,605
Minnesota|10|2,558,743|255,875|127,938
Iowa|6|1,537,896|256,316|128,159
Louisiana|8|2,091,581|261,448|130,725
Arizona|11|2,882,108|262,010|131,006
Washington|12|3,258,241|271,521|135,761
California|55|14,937,382|271,589|135,795
Virginia|13|3,562,047|274,004|137,003
Ohio|18|4,962,507|275,695|137,848
Indiana|11|3,050,610|277,329|138,665
Illinois|20|5,723,727|286,187|143,094
North Carolina|15|4,308,566|287,238|143,620
Missouri|10|2,914,062|291,407|145,704
Oklahoma|7|2,058,660|294,095|147,048
Massachusetts|11|3,275,595|297,782|148,892
New York|29|8,802,205|303,525|151,763
Colorado|9|2,837,725|315,303|157,652
Texas|38|12,126,992|319,132|159,567
Pennsylvania|20|6,405,857|320,293|160,147
Now you can go down the list and add the EC votes until you reach 270. In this case, it’s from Wyoming through Arizona. As chance would have it, that comes out to 270 votes even, no need to have any split states. We’ll make another table, this time with a new Votes to Win column showing the product of EC Votes and Votes to Win per District.
Table 4: Votes to Win, Hypothetical District-by-District Election
| State | EC Votes | Votes to Win |
|---|---|---|
| Wyoming | 3 | 126,330 |
| Alaska | 3 | 137,991 |
| District of Columbia | 3 | 141,438 |
| Vermont | 3 | 150,939 |
| North Dakota | 3 | 160,119 |
| Maine | 4 | 223,848 |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 237,380 |
| Delaware | 3 | 220,317 |
| South Dakota | 3 | 220,914 |
| New Hampshire | 4 | 308,148 |
| West Virginia | 5 | 401,300 |
| Hawaii | 4 | 326,652 |
| Nebraska | 5 | 417,935 |
| Montana | 3 | 258,168 |
| Idaho | 4 | 345,348 |
| Nevada | 6 | 565,926 |
| Utah | 6 | 583,626 |
| New Mexico | 5 | 500,870 |
| Kansas | 6 | 616,212 |
| Georgia | 16 | 1,778,288 |
| Maryland | 10 | 1,141,680 |
| Tennessee | 11 | 1,283,821 |
| South Carolina | 9 | 1,064,574 |
| Michigan | 16 | 1,907,120 |
| Oregon | 7 | 834,680 |
| Connecticut | 7 | 835,527 |
| Mississippi | 6 | 727,500 |
| Wisconsin | 10 | 1,216,970 |
| New Jersey | 14 | 1,704,892 |
| Alabama | 9 | 1,133,379 |
| Arkansas | 6 | 756,528 |
| Florida | 29 | 3,664,904 |
| Kentucky | 8 | 1,020,840 |
| Minnesota | 10 | 1,279,380 |
| Iowa | 6 | 768,954 |
| Louisiana | 8 | 1,045,800 |
| Arizona | 11 | 1,441,066 |
| — | — | — |
| United States | 270 | 29,549,364 |
Now we can take this sum (29,549,364 votes) and divide it by the total votes cast from table 1 (226,410,346 votes). The result is 13.05% of the national popular vote.
~Max
I guess it would be fighting the hypothetical to say that I doubt that established nations would give up that much sovereignty, as opposed to little more than colony outposts that could barely muster self sufficiency.
I do note a few differences from your hypothetical to the formation of the US.
The first being that it wouldn’t just be those 5, we’d get Australia, New Zealand, some of the Pacific island nations, and some number of Central American countries as well.
Over the years, we’d be adding in more countries/states, and barely a four score years in, we’d have a pretty brutal civil war.
Then we’d add in even more states. China and the US may be the population and economic centers of the partnership, but they’d have very little power over its governance. Kiribati and French Polynesia would be the first to cast their primary ballots.
At the end of the day, what you seem to be asking is, if we made all the same mistakes today, would people be bitching about them in 200 years?
At the very least, the powers should either be more equally divided, or leaning towards the House. The Senate shouldn’t hold a monopoly on appointments.
Personally, I think that the bicameral legislature was an okay idea, but it didn’t go far enough. I like a pentacameral legislature, where there are several ways of apportioning votes, to ensure that everyone has a voice.
Thanks. I was assuming no districts though (which is worse). I was assuming that if you got X% of the votes in a state, you got X% of the delegates for that state. This allows a simple calculation of “votes per delegate” per state (from your original data, this gives 84K votes/delegate for Wyoming, 271K votes/delegate for California). Adding this up (ignoring the rounding for the final delegate) and I get that you need 47.59% of the vote minimum.
Yes if 200 years go by, and the cultural, demographic and nationalist differences that previously separated China from western countries have largely dissolved but Chinese votes are still counted less than those of the US and Europe, that would be an unfair anti-democratic anachronism that should be gotten rid of. Particularly if the candidate who won was constantly threatening to cut off funds to China.
Also its not as if the arbitrarily drawn state lines actually represent different cultural populations with different representative views. The populations and political interests Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota, are much less distinct, than are those of Northern and Southern California, but because of arbitrary lines made up at the time of the civil war these 4 states have 4 times the power of California in the senate despite representing 1/10th the number of people.
I suppose we should be grateful that they didn’t decide to divide Alaska into 10 different territories before they were admitted into the union.
Refining it to account for rounding of each state’s last EC, plus not needing all of New Jersey, and I get that changing states to X% of the state vote gets you X% of the delegates, you need 42.5% of the vote to win. Substantial improvement from 23% (while still giving something towards small states) and only needing state laws to enact, not constitutional change.
I’ve looked my post over and the math checks out. If the 2016 Presidential election took place under a district-by-district system, given a few assumptions, a candidate could win the election with only 13.05% of the popular vote.
One of those major assumptions is that each state created a number of voting districts, such that the number of districts in the state equals the number of electoral votes in the state, and that each district within the same state has the same number of eligible voters. (There are other, probably better methods of awarding “proportional” votes). Another major assumption is that voter turnout would have been the same as it was during the actual 2016 election; also that voter turnout would have been homogenous throughout the state.
Here’s a properly formatted Table 3.
Table 3: Hypothetical 2016 District-by-District Data
State EC Votes Turnout % Voting Eligible Population Turnout Wyoming 3 58.80% 429,682 252,653 Vermont 3 61.00% 494,871 301,871 District of Columbia 3 54.90% 515,248 282,871 Alaska 3 52.80% 522,679 275,975 North Dakota 3 56.50% 566,783 320,232 South Dakota 3 70.00% 631,173 441,821 Delaware 3 63.70% 691,720 440,626 Montana 3 64.20% 804,250 516,329 Rhode Island 4 60.40% 786,012 474,751 Hawaii 4 64.50% 1,012,860 653,295 New Hampshire 4 59.10% 1,042,795 616,292 Maine 4 42.30% 1,058,372 447,691 Idaho 4 59.20% 1,166,706 690,690 Nebraska 5 62.20% 1,343,821 835,857 West Virginia 5 56.40% 1,423,031 802,589 New Mexico 5 68.40% 1,464,515 1,001,728 Nevada 6 57.70% 1,961,587 1,131,836 Utah 6 58.60% 1,991,885 1,167,245 Kansas 6 60.00% 2,054,025 1,232,415 Arkansas 6 70.70% 2,140,097 1,513,049 Mississippi 6 66.40% 2,191,241 1,454,984 Iowa 6 67.20% 2,288,536 1,537,896 Connecticut 7 64.70% 2,582,761 1,671,046 Oklahoma 7 74.10% 2,778,219 2,058,660 Oregon 7 55.20% 3,024,174 1,669,344 Kentucky 8 62.20% 3,282,420 2,041,665 Louisiana 8 61.80% 3,384,435 2,091,581 Alabama 9 62.80% 3,609,447 2,266,733 South Carolina 9 57.40% 3,709,283 2,129,128 Colorado 9 71.40% 3,974,405 2,837,725 Minnesota 10 64.40% 3,973,204 2,558,743 Maryland 10 54.50% 4,189,616 2,283,341 Wisconsin 10 56.80% 4,285,071 2,433,920 Missouri 10 64.50% 4,517,925 2,914,062 Arizona 11 60.80% 4,740,310 2,882,108 Indiana 11 62.90% 4,849,937 3,050,610 Tennessee 11 52.30% 4,909,426 2,567,630 Massachusetts 11 66.20% 4,948,028 3,275,595 Washington 12 63.60% 5,123,020 3,258,241 Virginia 13 59.10% 6,027,152 3,562,047 New Jersey 14 56.70% 6,013,656 3,409,743 North Carolina 15 58.60% 7,352,501 4,308,566 Georgia 16 51.10% 6,959,963 3,556,541 Michigan 16 51.40% 7,420,628 3,814,203 Ohio 18 56.80% 8,736,808 4,962,507 Illinois 20 63.70% 8,985,443 5,723,727 Pennsylvania 20 66.10% 9,691,160 6,405,857 New York 29 64.70% 13,604,645 8,802,205 Florida 29 50.20% 14,601,066 7,329,735 Texas 38 69.50% 17,448,910 12,126,992 California 55 59.50% 25,104,844 14,937,382
~Max
However it would still require that all states be bound in some way to follow this method. Otherwise, it would be unilateral disarmament for those states who decided to follow it if others remained winner take all. So I’m not sure that this would be any easier to get to work than a constitutional amendment.
Also , even if every statwhile it eliminate of problem of the overwhelming power of the swing states, and gives more power to those states with landslide elections, it still doesn’t solve the issue of the population to EC vote advantage of the small states. In fact it makes it somewhat worse, for example if the 4 states (ND, SD, MT, WY) each split the vote 47/53 in favor of Trump, that will result in a net gain of 4EVs for Trump. Meanwhile a 53/47 split for CA, would only result in 3 EV’s for Clinton.
If we took the Maine/Nebraska approach and awarded two EC votes to the statewide popular vote, and the rest to the majority winner in each district, I’m getting a minimum of 14.03% of the national popular vote to win the election. You can check Table 5, which is sorted by votes to win per district. You can get exactly 270 votes by winning every district of only 23 states and D.C. (Maine through Minnesota on the table); winning every district in a state is enough to win both at-large electors in that state.
This still rests on the assumptions that there are no third-parties, that voter turnout reflects the 2016 election, and that voter turnout is homogeneous throughout each state.
Table 5: Votes to Win, Hypothetical Maine/Nebraska-Style Election
State EC Votes Turnout Districts District Turnout Votes to Win District Votes to Win All Districts Votes to Win At-Large Maine 4 447,691 2 223,846 111,924 223,848 223,846 Rhode Island 4 474,751 2 237,376 118,689 237,378 237,376 Wyoming 3 252,653 1 252,653 126,327 126,327 126,327 Georgia 16 3,556,541 14 254,039 127,020 1,778,280 1,778,271 West Virginia 5 802,589 3 267,530 133,766 401,298 401,295 Florida 29 7,329,735 27 271,472 135,737 3,664,899 3,664,868 Michigan 16 3,814,203 14 272,443 136,222 1,907,108 1,907,102 Alaska 3 275,975 1 275,975 137,988 137,988 137,988 Nebraska 5 835,857 3 278,619 139,310 417,930 417,929 California 55 14,937,382 53 281,837 140,919 7,468,707 7,468,692 District of Columbia 3 282,871 1 282,871 141,436 141,436 141,436 Nevada 6 1,131,836 4 282,959 141,480 565,920 565,919 New Jersey 14 3,409,743 12 284,145 142,073 1,704,876 1,704,872 Tennessee 11 2,567,630 9 285,292 142,647 1,283,823 1,283,816 Maryland 10 2,283,341 8 285,418 142,710 1,141,680 1,141,671 Utah 6 1,167,245 4 291,811 145,906 583,624 583,623 Vermont 3 301,871 1 301,871 150,936 150,936 150,936 South Carolina 9 2,129,128 7 304,161 152,081 1,064,567 1,064,565 Wisconsin 10 2,433,920 8 304,240 152,121 1,216,968 1,216,961 Kansas 6 1,232,415 4 308,104 154,053 616,212 616,208 New Hampshire 4 616,292 2 308,146 154,074 308,148 308,147 Ohio 18 4,962,507 16 310,157 155,079 2,481,264 2,481,254 Illinois 20 5,723,727 18 317,985 158,993 2,861,874 2,861,864 Minnesota 10 2,558,743 8 319,843 159,922 1,279,376 1,279,372 Subtotal 270 — — — — 31,764,467 — North Dakota 3 320,232 1 320,232 160,117 160,117 160,117 Arizona 11 2,882,108 9 320,234 160,118 1,441,062 1,441,055 Alabama 9 2,266,733 7 323,819 161,910 1,133,370 1,133,367 Virginia 13 3,562,047 11 323,822 161,912 1,781,032 1,781,024 Washington 12 3,258,241 10 325,824 162,913 1,629,130 1,629,121 New York 29 8,802,205 27 326,008 163,005 4,401,135 4,401,103 Hawaii 4 653,295 2 326,648 163,324 326,648 326,648 North Carolina 15 4,308,566 13 331,428 165,715 2,154,295 2,154,284 Oregon 7 1,669,344 5 333,869 166,935 834,675 834,673 New Mexico 5 1,001,728 3 333,909 166,955 500,865 500,865 Connecticut 7 1,671,046 5 334,209 167,105 835,525 835,524 Texas 38 12,126,992 36 336,861 168,431 6,063,516 6,063,497 Indiana 11 3,050,610 9 338,957 169,479 1,525,311 1,525,306 Kentucky 8 2,041,665 6 340,278 170,140 1,020,840 1,020,833 Idaho 4 690,690 2 345,345 172,673 345,346 345,346 Louisiana 8 2,091,581 6 348,597 174,299 1,045,794 1,045,791 Pennsylvania 20 6,405,857 18 355,881 177,941 3,202,938 3,202,929 Mississippi 6 1,454,984 4 363,746 181,874 727,496 727,493 Massachusetts 11 3,275,595 9 363,955 181,978 1,637,802 1,637,798 Missouri 10 2,914,062 8 364,258 182,130 1,457,040 1,457,032 Arkansas 6 1,513,049 4 378,262 189,132 756,528 756,525 Iowa 6 1,537,896 4 384,474 192,238 768,952 768,949 Colorado 9 2,837,725 7 405,389 202,695 1,418,865 1,418,863 Oklahoma 7 2,058,660 5 411,732 205,867 1,029,335 1,029,331 Delaware 3 440,626 1 440,626 220,314 220,314 220,314 South Dakota 3 441,821 1 441,821 220,911 220,911 220,911 Montana 3 516,329 1 516,329 258,165 258,165 258,165
Fun fact: Maine’s approach to the electoral college makes a down-easter’s vote more important than anybody else’s in the country. At least, it does until you factor in strongholds and battlegrounds.
~Max
I suspect that a proportional vote in 2016 (as described by squidfood) would have sent the election to the (then-Republican) House of Representatives…
~Max
According to my calculations, a candidate can win the Presidency under your proportional popular vote system with only 24.51% of the popular vote. Table 6 is sorted by Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last. The candidate needs only win over all the electoral votes of 36 states, plus D.C. (Wyoming through Arizona on the table).
Columns for Table 6
Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last = Turnout / EC Votes
Votes to Tie for All Electors Except Last = Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last * (EC Votes - 1)
Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector = Turnout / (EC Votes * 2)
Votes to Win All Electors = floor(Votes to Tie for All Electors Except Last + Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector) + 1
Direct Calculation = floor(Turnout * (EC Votes - 0.5) / EC Votes) + 1
Table 6: Votes to Win, Hypothetical Proportional-Style Election
State EC Votes Turnout Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last Votes to Tie for All Electors Except Last Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector Votes to Win All Electors Direct Calculation Wyoming 3 252,653 84,217.67 168,435.33 42,108.83 210,546 210,545 Alaska 3 275,975 91,991.67 183,983.33 45,995.83 229,979 229,980 District of Columbia 3 282,871 94,290.33 188,580.67 47,145.17 235,726 235,726 Vermont 3 301,871 100,623.67 201,247.33 50,311.83 251,559 251,560 North Dakota 3 320,232 106,744.00 213,488.00 53,372.00 266,860 266,861 Maine 4 447,691 111,922.75 335,768.25 55,961.38 391,730 391,730 Rhode Island 4 474,751 118,687.75 356,063.25 59,343.88 415,407 415,408 Delaware 3 440,626 146,875.33 293,750.67 73,437.67 367,188 367,189 South Dakota 3 441,821 147,273.67 294,547.33 73,636.83 368,184 368,185 New Hampshire 4 616,292 154,073.00 462,219.00 77,036.50 539,256 539,256 West Virginia 5 802,589 160,517.80 642,071.20 80,258.90 722,330 722,331 Hawaii 4 653,295 163,323.75 489,971.25 81,661.88 571,633 571,634 Nebraska 5 835,857 167,171.40 668,685.60 83,585.70 752,271 752,272 Montana 3 516,329 172,109.67 344,219.33 86,054.83 430,274 430,275 Idaho 4 690,690 172,672.50 518,017.50 86,336.25 604,354 604,354 Nevada 6 1,131,836 188,639.33 943,196.67 94,319.67 1,037,516 1,037,517 Utah 6 1,167,245 194,540.83 972,704.17 97,270.42 1,069,975 1,069,975 New Mexico 5 1,001,728 200,345.60 801,382.40 100,172.80 901,555 901,556 Kansas 6 1,232,415 205,402.50 1,027,012.50 102,701.25 1,129,714 1,129,714 Georgia 16 3,556,541 222,283.81 3,334,257.19 111,141.91 3,445,399 3,445,400 Maryland 10 2,283,341 228,334.10 2,055,006.90 114,167.05 2,169,174 2,169,174 Tennessee 11 2,567,630 233,420.91 2,334,209.09 116,710.45 2,450,920 2,450,920 South Carolina 9 2,129,128 236,569.78 1,892,558.22 118,284.89 2,010,843 2,010,844 Michigan 16 3,814,203 238,387.69 3,575,815.31 119,193.84 3,695,009 3,695,010 Oregon 7 1,669,344 238,477.71 1,430,866.29 119,238.86 1,550,105 1,550,106 Connecticut 7 1,671,046 238,720.86 1,432,325.14 119,360.43 1,551,686 1,551,686 Mississippi 6 1,454,984 242,497.33 1,212,486.67 121,248.67 1,333,735 1,333,736 Wisconsin 10 2,433,920 243,392.00 2,190,528.00 121,696.00 2,312,224 2,312,225 New Jersey 14 3,409,743 243,553.07 3,166,189.93 121,776.54 3,287,966 3,287,967 Alabama 9 2,266,733 251,859.22 2,014,873.78 125,929.61 2,140,803 2,140,804 Arkansas 6 1,513,049 252,174.83 1,260,874.17 126,087.42 1,386,962 1,386,962 Florida 29 7,329,735 252,749.48 7,076,985.52 126,374.74 7,203,360 7,203,361 Kentucky 8 2,041,665 255,208.13 1,786,456.88 127,604.06 1,914,061 1,914,061 Minnesota 10 2,558,743 255,874.30 2,302,868.70 127,937.15 2,430,806 2,430,806 Iowa 6 1,537,896 256,316.00 1,281,580.00 128,158.00 1,409,738 1,409,739 Louisiana 8 2,091,581 261,447.63 1,830,133.38 130,723.81 1,960,857 1,960,858 Arizona 11 2,882,108 262,009.82 2,620,098.18 131,004.91 2,751,103 2,751,104 Subtotal 270 — — — — 55,500,938 55,500,831 Washington 12 3,258,241 271,520.08 2,986,720.92 135,760.04 3,122,481 3,122,481 California 55 14,937,382 271,588.76 14,665,793.24 135,794.38 14,801,588 14,801,588 Virginia 13 3,562,047 274,003.62 3,288,043.38 137,001.81 3,425,045 3,425,046 Ohio 18 4,962,507 275,694.83 4,686,812.17 137,847.42 4,824,660 4,824,660 Indiana 11 3,050,610 277,328.18 2,773,281.82 138,664.09 2,911,946 2,911,946 Illinois 20 5,723,727 286,186.35 5,437,540.65 143,093.18 5,580,634 5,580,634 North Carolina 15 4,308,566 287,237.73 4,021,328.27 143,618.87 4,164,947 4,164,948 Missouri 10 2,914,062 291,406.20 2,622,655.80 145,703.10 2,768,359 2,768,359 Oklahoma 7 2,058,660 294,094.29 1,764,565.71 147,047.14 1,911,613 1,911,613 Massachusetts 11 3,275,595 297,781.36 2,977,813.64 148,890.68 3,126,704 3,126,705 New York 29 8,802,205 303,524.31 8,498,680.69 151,762.16 8,650,443 8,650,443 Colorado 9 2,837,725 315,302.78 2,522,422.22 157,651.39 2,680,074 2,680,074 Texas 38 12,126,992 319,131.37 11,807,860.63 159,565.68 11,967,426 11,967,427 Pennsylvania 20 6,405,857 320,292.85 6,085,564.15 160,146.43 6,245,711 6,245,711
~Max
I’m surprised at how many Dopers think a popular vote is the answer. I wonder if they’ve really thought this through.
Our elections are binary: Joe vs Jake, Jane vs Janet, Pass vs Fail. We do not have a multiparty system where 3rd and 4th place get a seat at the political table. This means the country’s urban areas would be in de-facto control of EVERY election.
I suppose this might seem great if you live in an urban area but I wonder if they have thought how the rest of the country would be affected. We would be going back to taxation without representation. Does this really seem fair?
Do the countries urban areas control the House and Senate EVERY election?
But while we’re dumping the EC, we can implement SRV or Instant Runoff ro some other better system.
Yes.
Does it seem fair that all votes aren’t equal?
I’d prefer they were equal but I’d much rather have all of them count in varying degrees vs some not be counted.
I would probably support the abolishment of the EC if we had an alternate political party system in place:
Force 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place candidates to form a political coalition as other countries do and I could see a popular vote working. I’m not certain it would be better than the EC but it would function.
“Tie each elector” doesn’t make sense to me. Let’s say you have 10EC and 100 voters in a state. A vote of 90/10 (in my mind) would lead to 9 electors for one side, 1 elector for the other side, perfect proportions. To get that final EC, the high side would have to get to 96 votes to make it 10 and 0 ECs (and 4 voters with no ECs to represent them). You seem to be saying that with a 90/10 vote, you’d divide it so that each EC got a 9 votes from one side, 1 from the other. Which is “district” apportionment without districts, or something? But that’s not what I’m talking about.
We’ve been around this a few times, in this thread alone, so yes, been thought through. I assume you did not read the thread?
The first is that urban areas are not homogeneous. Different cities want different things, so they would not necessarily control anything, not unless they formed a coalition.
Then there is the fact that, with an EC, all the rural people of California are entirely ignored. They have ideas and candidates that they want to bring to the table, but cannot.
Then of course, there is the fact that to do it otherwise means that the country’s rural areas are in control of every election.
As far as taxation without representation, you still have the legislature, so you are represented, even if not by president. And if this is a problem, then wouldn’t it be a problem that the majority are not represented?
You want ranked choice voting, I’m down for that.
Rural areas would indeed be in control of the presidency if all states had an equal vote in the election. But this is not the case. States with higher populations have greater power in the EC to attempt to equal it out. I agree it’s still not 100% fair
I was specifically talking about the popular vote giving de-facto control to urban areas. Naturally if part of the legislator still exists which does not use the popular vote it would not be affected.
Even if it was only for the presidential election it would still mean urban areas would be in control of electing every president. Yes, I think this would be a problem.
That is false. It’s a total misunderstanding of what “representation” means.
Who has suggested any votes not be counted?
If a person votes, but their candidate loses, you understand their vote still counted, right?