Here is another way to look at the relative influence of voters in more populous and less populous states:
The 41 least populous states could elect a president with 281 electoral votes. It would take a minimum of about 31,289,214 votes to win those states.
The 11 most populous states could elect a president with 270 electoral votes. It would take a minimum of about 38,601,770 votes to win those states.
(For simplicity, I am assuming that 50% of the population of each state votes, that each state is won by only 1 vote, and I am considering DC to be a state).
Well, it is more complicated, because the bigger state is more likely to affect the outocme of the election.
For example, with two candidates there is currently 2^50 (a lot) ways those states can turn out, ranging from all the states for one candidate to any number of evenly split number of states. But out of all those scenarios, large states like California will have far more cases where a change in their outcome will effect the overall outcome. SO while in your example the Montana voter is three times more “powerful” there is almost certainly more then three times more scenarios where California is a decisive state.
Maine and Nebraska do not have proportional voting. They split the electoral votes by congressional districts. What I recommend is truly pro rata voting. For example: Florida has 25 electoral votes. Bush had 50+% of the voters voting for him and Gore had 50-%. So we give Bush 13 ev’s and Gore 12 ev’s. Doesn’t that seem fair?
If that was done in every state, or even just Fla. alone obviously, Gore would have won. I think that’s the fairest way. The argument for the electoral college is that we are a republic not a democracy and we have states not just one indivisible nation. Fine. Smaller states must have their just say. So keep the ec, but divide the ev pro rata according to the popular vote in the state, not according to congressional districts. This is something that does not need a Constitutional amendment, only legislation by all the states.
Are you saying that it would be fair because then Gore would have assumed the “proper” position as President-elect? Then, it’s only fair by Gore’s standard!
The proportional assignment scheme you propose is not a far cry from using the wicked popular vote, and that much closer to doing away with the EC altogether. Maybe the EC has problems, but think of what’s important: the ideology behind it. If people in general put a whole lot more thought and intelligence into the ideology behind things, everyone would be a lot happier. As a plus, I think Democrats would no longer exist
I’m in favor abosulutely of my own state (Michigan) going to districting votes. This keeps things in line with the idea that “all politics are local,” as they should be. I want to vote for an elector who represents my district. I also don’t want my state to keep giving all of our electors to “the stupid party” 'cos of some uneducated malcontents in the city of Detroit (okay, I’m being a little absurd but it helps my point).
I cannot specifically recommend that other states do or do not the same – it’s their own business. To tire the point more, we’re a Federal Republic (supposed to be, anyway).
Fairness has nothing to do with the Dems winning, and this is not like the popular vote. The only objection to the popular vote is that it denies states’ rights: small states would have less to say about who’s going to be president. Why should Fla. give all of its 25 votes to Bush when the voting was almost even? Now, I ask you, is that fair?
It’s up to the state legislature to decide how to pick electors.
To make it more “popular”, they could omit the presidential election. For each House of Representative winner, his party is awarded one electorial vote. The other two electorial votes could be “sold” by the governor, or given to the majority party in the state house & senate.
To illustrate the increased power of the larger states, let’s consider a hypothetical nation with two states. Each state gets 50 votes plus one vote per every billion people. Votes are issued in a first-past-the-pole manner. State A has a population of one, and state B has a population of a billion and one. Who has more power, the Governor of A, with 50 votes (50 per person), or a citizen of state B, which has 51 votes (.0000002 per person)? No matter what His Excellency A says, the voters of B will carry the country.
From an outsiders perspective, I think you are on the right path, but you may also have made a serious oversight. What happens to the votes for the minor party candidates?
As a hypothetical take IL where on a pro rata basis GOP gets 9.4 ev’s, the DEM get 12.1 ev’s and Nader gets 0.5 ev’s. So we make that 9 GOP, 12 DEM and who gets the last spot? Would be very tight, FWIW I think Nader.
By my reckoning the ev’s for Florida would be Bush 12, Gore, 12 and Nader 1.
I don’t grok the value in the proportionalizing the electoral vote.
If we don’t want to move to a popular vote then why is it desirable to seek to approach it in a districted election?
I mean, I can understand it as a compromise proposal but not as a position itself.
I thought that the electoral boundaries for the Congressional districts in each state were drawn by the state legislatures, not the House of Representatives? (U.S. Constitution,, Art. I, s. 4.)
“Who has more power, the Governor of A, with 50 votes (50 per person), or a citizen of state B, which has 51 votes (.0000002 per person)? No matter what His Excellency A says, the voters of B will carry the country.”
And the vote of each citizen of B will carry 0.000000004 of the weight of the vote of each citizen of A.
Getting back to the original post and question, I saw a guy on Foxnews last night who attempted this analysis. He came up with roughly 229 for Bush and 209 for Gore based on the House districts only. Throw in Bush’s 29 states and Gore’s 21 states for the votes based on senate distribution and that gives Bush a 287-251 edge. He said his analysis was plus or minus 5 votes, so a more comfortable win for Bush either way.
Actually, I’m in favor of districting the vote in my state as a position itself. I’ve even mentioned it here at the SDMB prior to the election and it’s silly do-away-with-the-EC propoganda.
The basis of my position is that in Michigan, the “popular vote” (winner-take-all) does not fairly represenet everyone in the state. In the huge 6+ county metro-Detroit area, we’re full of poor, minorities, union members, uneducateds, et al. You know, people that vote democratic. It’s overpopulated, thus there’s a large number of people in this tiny little area that dictate what the rest of the state must do with the EC votes.
I don’t approach this idea as a “compromise” between the EC and the general election at all. On the contrary, I want to keep the EC system unmodified. Districting the vote in my state would actually model the EC (and the Federal System) in that each federal district gets to choose its own representation. I’m tired of being embarrased that Michigan always gives all of its electors to the big-brother party.
I was supposing that the benefit of districtizing was that it was closer to the popular vote.
You are stating that you would prefer it because it would redraw the electoral map in a manner more favorable to your party?
I support direct, popular election of the President, but I can see one clear advantage to barbitu8’s one district/one electoral vote proposal. While getting closer to a popular vote, it avoids the one strong argument against a nationwide popular vote- the nightmare of having to recount the entire country for a really close race. In fact, in this regard, the proposal is even an improvement on the present system, since we would not even need statewide recounts.
Well, actually, in this (admittedly contrived) example, the resident of A’s vote has no weight.
It doesn’t matter how he votes, or if he even bothers at all. Whoever carries State B wins the election, with (at least) 51 out of 101 electoral votes.
I don’t care about accurately reflecting the popular vote, since I believe the electoral system works, and works well. Also, I believe in districting the vote in order to accurately (fairly) distribute the electoral votes withing my own state. Yes, a consequence is that in the current mindset of my state, it would benefit my party. Also, the swing could change to the detriment of my party. I’m willing to accept that in order to eliminate the “winner-take-all approach.”
I’m not advocating other states do the same, for as I’ve said, it’s their own business to decide what they want for themselves (I’m a states’-rightist). Some other states doing the same would hurt my party, I’m sure.
While we’ve seen results of a “districted apportionment” here on this board for all fifty-one states using the districted system, this isn’t really realistic. Not all states are going to change their systems. Thus only a handful of states changing to this type of system introduces a dynamic that none of us can predict – it could hurt my party or benefit it. I don’t know, but I’m willing to accept the results either way based on the inherent fairness.
The electoral college should be ABOLISHED FOREVER and the popular vote should be all that gets counted. I know you didn’t ask for my opinion, but I just had to vent…
