What would have happened in 2008 and 2012 if every state had chosen to have its electors chosen by congressional district (plus two at large)? I can imagine that Obama might have won in 2008 since he carried a Democratic congress, but may well have lost in 2012? Has anyone tabulated this? This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact.
That question doesn’t have a factual answer, unless you are stipulating that the presidential vote in each district matches the congressional vote.
With Senate- and DC-based seats, that gives Obama 264, Romney 272.
Because some people would have voted differently (or voted, or not vote) if their presidential votes were tallied by district.
Ignoring the point about what if individual voters had voted differently …
You’ve answered for the 435 Congressional reps / Electors. Good work.
But what about the 100 at-large Electors, 2 per state? What rules govern how they’re selected and/or how they are required to vote in the College? If they vote for whichever presidential candidate got the plurality of votes across their whole state, then there’s not much point in having 2 per state since both electors of each state will always vote the same.
No state would want a system where their two electors voted opposite to each other for a nearly tied popular vote. But that would be the logical way to “distill” a popular vote by millions of voters down to a best-fit vote by 2 electors. So what ought to be the definition of “nearly tied”? Anything closer than 55/45 between just the two most popular candidates? 54/46? …
You seem to be under the impression that it’s impossible to tally Presidential votes by House district. It isn’t. It is done routinely and served as the basis for the analysis in kk fusion’s link.
And the campaigns would have been run differently, too. For just a small sample, Nebraska does allocate its votes in this way, and Obama knew that he had no chance at all of winning the state as a whole… but that he did have a chance of winning the second district and maybe the first, so he had some campaign events there and ads targeted at the residents and so on. And lo and behold, in 2008, he did in fact win NE-2.
It would be (essentially) the same as having the President elected by the House of Representatives, which is how the Prime Minister is elected in Parliamentary systems. Except that the Prime Minister is elected from within the electoral body.
We can simplify it and cut through all the clutter, and say what if presidents were elected by popular vote. You know, like democratically. Once you decline that option, the floor is open to all kinds of permutations, absurd and less-absurd.
Math correction–should be Obama 264, Romney 274.
The usual assumption is that the at-large electors would both go to the winner of the state.
No, it wouldn’t be the same at all, because in many districts the Presidential vote and the House vote are not the same, and there are also the 100 at-large electors.
You have no way of knowing how people would have voted if they knew that their single vote was for both congressman and president at once. I did not take the at-large electors into account because the OP didn’t. I am not comparing with the electoral college, but with the OP’s proposal.
What “single vote”?
The people are voting once for congressional representative and once for presidential elector, the same as now. The only difference is that the presidential elector is chosen by which presidential candidate receives more votes in the district, rather than who receives more votes in the state. This is the way Nebraska does it now anyway (as does Maine).
KK Fusion has answered the precise question I asked. The disparity is partly the result of intentional gerrymandering and partly the fact that large cities are overwhelming Democrat and many of their votes are thereby “wasted”. I wonder why more Republican dominated states haven’t followed Nebraska (and I didn’t know they did that before).
If they’re Republican-dominated, then it’s to Republicans’ advantage to maintain the Winner-Take-All system.
Maine does it too. There are moves afoot to do that in some (probably temporarily) GOP-controlled midwestern states which generally give their votes to the Democrat. They don’t seem to have gone anywhere though.
I’m not under that impression at all. I am pointing out that tallying votes that way is a purely academic exercise.
The big difference would be that in states like CA, which really weren’t in play those years, no effort was made to campaign in districts that weren’t solid because it would have been wasted money. If the electoral votes were cast differently then the election would have been run differently.
With winner-take-all rules you have to write off states that you have no chance of winning. Winning 2 districts in a state with 10 doesn’t do you any good. However, if you can win 2 votes in that state then you campaign where you think you can win and maybe swing a few to your side.
Looking at historical results only tells you how things were based on the rules in play at the time. Change the rules and the campaign strategy changes and so do the vote totals.