So which parallel universe was this?
I would have fewer gripes about the EC if indeed states divvied up electoral votes either on an overall percentile basis (Candidate X wins 30% of the popular vote and therefore gets 30% of the electoral votes, with whatever mathematical wrangling is required there) or by districts. IIRC there are two states that still do divide up their votes (which I’ll go look up in a minute).
Unfortunately this is something that would have to change on a state-by-state basis, and the party that currently gains most in each state by the winner-takes-all system is unlikely to change the status quo just to be equitable and/or nice about it.
Also, each state dividing votes by proportion still doesn’t eliminate the fact that smaller states will get a larger say than big states because of the fact that the number of electors is the number of Reps plus the number of Senators. Thus, for example, a state that only has enough population for 1 Rep still gets 3 electoral votes…whereas a state that has enough population for 40 Reps gets 42 electoral votes. The people in the small state therefore have something like 3X the weighting on their votes.
This is incorrect. Colorado’s proposed amendment would assign the electoral vote as a result of the percentage of popular vote, pretty much as described in Gyrate’s post below yours.
This is closer. Maine and Nebraska assign their votes as follows: one to the winner of each congressional district, and two to the state-wide winner. And, yes, the manner of assigning the electoral votes is entirely up to the state, and can be changed to be anything the legislature wants. That’s going to be an interesting aspect if the Colorado initiative passes (unlikely at the moment), as the initiative process here bypasses the legislature. I would expect to see cases filed as quickly as the evening of the 2nd. Hmmm, maybe we can be the Florida of 2004!
Ah, the old myth of Nixon’s graceful concession in 1960. Sure, he didn’t personally demand recounts in 11 states–the party leaders did that for him, probably at his instigation. And it backfired, because not only did those recounts not do Nixon any good, but they prompted the Democrats to retaliate by calling for a recount in Hawaii, which cost Nixon his victory in that state.
John and pervert, here are links to parts 1, 2 and 3 of the series written by Timothy Noah in Slate. I pass these on for your (and others’) perusal – I haven’t got time to answer in detail right now.
Right, the illegal ballot that was approved by both parties before the election. What is your definition of illegal?
My definition of illegal is not in accordance with law, and Florida law required that all candidates be listed on the same side of the ballot. As a Democratic operative noted before the elction and complained to the county’s election board, but they just ignored the complant and pretended that the Democrats had approved of it. As did the national media. And you.
To **This Year’s Model, ** thanks for the correction. I apologize for my confusion. Could you say more about how the Colorado proposal would work? If electoral votes are to be awarded in proportion to the popular vote, is there a provision for awarding fractional electoral votes? Or would the numbers have to be rounded up or down? Would third-party candidates get any electoral votes, and if so, would they have to meet some minimum threshold percentage of popular votes to be included? Under this system, would Nader or Buchanan (or anyone other than Bush and Gore) have collected any electoral votes in the last election?
I don’t know whether the Colorado proposal is perfect, but I think almost anything would be better than “winner take all.”
Well, I’ll tell you, it’s really a piece of garbage. For anyone interested, here is the (PDF) text of the amendment.
Whole votes only are awarded. My understanding is that no party can be awarded votes unless they are entitled to one whole vote, meaning 11.1% of the popular vote. However, that can be taken away if the calculations result in more than our nine votes. (They take away starting at the bottom.) Nader was third here in 2000, and would have not won any votes. Ross Perot would have won (I think) two in 1992.
I’ve said before, I could maybe get behind a switch to the Maine/Nebraska system, but this is just ludicrous.
One problem I see with deciding electoral votes on a congressional-district basis: You could have even bigger and more vicious shenanigans going on with redistricting (a la Texas’s recent flap).
FWIW, when this Republican saw that Bush might lose Florida, I swallowed my pride and vowed that if he lost I’d accept Gore as president and not complain about it.
I’ve already made the same vow this time about Bush and Kerry. I think the dvisiveness of “selected not elected” is potentially more damaging to the country than my chosen candidate’s losing.
Oh and whenever I see debates about the EC, I have to point out: the EC saved us from having Florida-style recounts in every county in the nation. That alone means it’s worth keeping.
Why? Because the Constitution requires it. From the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (with comments from the Encarta – http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_3____69/Constitution_of_the_United_States.html#s69)::
There is no provision for “dummy” electors. In other words, it’s not a problem that can be solved through ordinary state or federal legislation – it would require a constitutional amendment. And if we’re going to tinker with that part of the Constitution at all, why not abolish the EC entirely?
At least, that’s my take on it. In a related GD thread – “Republican Elector in West Virginia says he might not vote for Bush” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275821 – John Mace posted the following from the website of the U.S. Embassy to Mexico (http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/ecollege.htm):
IOW, it’s an open question – the Supreme Court has not decisively ruled on whether or not it would be constitutional for a state to require an elector to vote a certain way, or punish an elector for failing to do so.
i find the scenario of Bush losing the electoral, but winning the popular, to be highly improbable. Republicans have a slight advantage when it comes to electoral votes, because more smaller states vote Republican. I added up the 25 states most likely to go Kerry’s way and the 25 most likely to vote for Bush and came out with over 300 vs under 230 EVs.
Splitting up the electoral votes by popular vote would give smaller states an even larger advantage. For example, in a state with 3 electoral votes, a 60-40 popular split would give the loser 33% of the EV and the winner 67%. In a state with 50 electoral votes, a 60-40 split would give the loser 40% and the winner 60%. And how would you do a 60-40 split with a state with 4 EVs? 3-1 or 2-2? Both seem unfair.
Splitting up EVs by congressional districts would be disastrous. It would virtually gaurantee a huge discrepancy in electoral vs popular vote. It would be like going through the electoral system twice. Democrats would win big in districts containing large cities, but lose small in most other districts.
That was due to a bunch of Zogby polls taken on Sep. 3 in most of the swing states. The polls were obviously biased towards Kerry a bit, and ended up making the difference in a few states. Later polls by different pollsters contradicted Zogby’s and slowly raised Bush’s EV count to were it is now (311).
There are still at least 3 Zogby 9/3 polls up, Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico, with Kerry leading, respectively, 1%, 4%, and 10%. Watch these numbers change when new polls are taken, CO will probably swing to Bush. However, barring any spectacular events, i believe Kerry will soon start to climb slowly electorally.
I’m still holding out hopes that the September 30 debate in Miami will be a “spectacular event” and that Kerry will get a huge bump in the polls the following week. And I’m really looking forward to the Edwards-Cheney faceoff!