Then it failed spectacularly. Nobody campaigns or cares about issues or voices in the small states because fighting over Wyoming will only get you 3 electors when you can get 10 times more by winning Florida or NY.
In 2016, 2/3rd of all campaigning by both candidates was done in 6 States, all of them double digit States with 13-29 electors. 94% of all campaigning went to 12 States. Exactly half of the States held NO event for either Clinton or Trump, including all the 3 elector States. Explain how is that representing voters in half of the States and not taking them for granted?
You know one small State that was visited though even though it held only 4 electoral votes? Maine. I wonder why…
Nobody cares about WY or NY because there’s no doubt about which why they’ll vote. Marginal states gets lots more pandering in the campaign process because it makes sense.
If the states moved away from a “winner takes all” electoral vote allocation method to a proportional one, then it would make sense to campaign if you would pick up some extra electoral votes even if you lost the state. A vote is a vote.
Unfortunately in order for a state to change their electoral allocation, they need the existing government to agree. In most cases, the existing government reflects the way the people are likely to vote, so it would not be in their political interest to change since it would just give the opposition minority some chance at electoral votes instead of none.
There’s absolutely nothing you can do to give a small state much relevance on the national stage. And candidates arent going to waste time campaigning in a state they are already expected to win, or have no chance of winning; a lot of those states simply were not competitive.
It’s more about preventing one area from dominating. One large city voting overwhelmingly one way can offset an awful lot of opposite votes in a number of rural areas. The electoral college caps the influence any one area can have on the final results.
If California votes 100% red, in a popular vote, that California tally could swing the final results to red in what was otherwise a decisive blue victory across the rest of the country. But with the electoral college, CA is limited to 55 electoral votes no matter how one-sided their state result is - they still have a large voice, but it’s capped relative to the rest of the country. You still need to win many other states to win the election.
Exactly. We can keep the allocation of electors proportionally to each State population to dis-proportionally represent the smaller States but still provide incentives for candidates to care more than about a dozen States and make votes matter more everywhere.
Take CA, if it was not a winner takes all, a proportion of the 55 electors would be VERY hard fought since getting a few more % even for the losing candidate would mean potentially several extra electors. But what’s the incentive for the dominant party in each State to essentially offer free electors to your opposition? It’d have to be in every State to be fair to both parties.
I think it could also make things more than a purely two-horse race. If a third candidate gathered enough votes in a few states, they could have their electors cast their vote for whichever candidate they like second best and there’d be less question of third candidates taking votes/electors away from Democrats or Republicans and thus more voices getting heard. Say libertarians or Green candidates could have a bit more of a say in deciding the election while getting their opinions not casually dismissed like they are now.
Are you describing a new idea or something that already exists?
Proportional distribution of electoral votes (proportional representation) would not help third parties that much, as they would still be taking votes away from the two major parties. Ranked voting would solve the problem of our 2-party system, giving a real chance to third-party candidates without taking away votes from the first two unnecessarily (votes for the first two are only lost if the 3rd party wins).
I’m not entirely certain where you’re going with that . . . but I think we might agree here:
Maine doles out its electoral votes based on the WINNER in each of its Congressional districts individually. This leaves Maine voters selecting Maine’s electoral college delegation, albeit with a finer granularity than in most other states. I don’t see how a fair minded person could find that objectionable, wrong, or in contravention of the founding fathers’ vision.
What frosts my grits is any system that supports voters in an outside state influencing another state’s electoral college selectees. I do not believe such as that ever was the founders’ intent.
I actually liked the situation in Maine and used it as an example of what it could be in other States. You have two electoral districts, one along the coast that represents a more urban population (for Maine at least), and the 2nd along the northern part of the State being a more rural district. They are free to each send 2 electors to better represent the wishes of slightly different populations.
As a result, it’s often split. In fact, Trump won the 2nd district in 2016. If it was a winner takes all State, he would not have since statewide, Maine has not been Republican since 1988. And I think that within each district, you’d feel that you’re more accurately represented this way and have less risk of being disenfranchised.
That’s using the same concept, just detailing it further than the state level. It’s still opposite of wanting a nationwide popular vote.
And any state could decide to do this right now - they don’t because it’s all blue states complaining, and such a change would result in them giving up some electoral votes in their strongholds. What we hear today isn’t about being fair or doing it right, it’s just plain old strategy to try to get an advantage this November.
I did send Collins support money at the beginning of her quest. I found it hard to carry on because it seems that every time the Republicans need support we must wait for the 2 Rep gals to make up their minds, then add Romney to the mix.
But Collins against the Dem opponent? Guess I should help her out. I think that ratings certainly show a lot. :Look at the different approval rating. Before Trump election vs now.
Actually the finer the granularity of the districts for winning an electoral vote, the closer you get to the popular vote, just not a nationwide one. But instead one that is artificially weighed to over-represent smaller States. Still it’d be more resistant to disenfranchising voters while staying close to the spirit of the Founders’ compromise.
They could just split each State into as many presidential districts as each State has electoral votes and I bet you’d see much closer to a true 50-State campaign strategy from all candidates and hopefully also higher voter turn outs.
Actually Maine allocates a single electoral vote to each of its two Congressional districts. Maine’s other two electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the state. Hence in 2016, Hillary took three of Maine’s electoral votes while Trump garnered only a single vote.
But for me that approach is good and fair and is in accord with our founding. What is most important to me is that the people of Colorado for example, or any other state you might wish to name, did NOT influence those Maine electoral votes. Only voters in the State of Maine did that. And that is how it ought to be. Period.
When voters in my state can have an impact on how electors from your state vote in the electoral college, that is NOT right.
Gerrymandering would probably be a large problem.
Why split into districts?
(All hypothetical, we’re not gonna get a constitutional amendment changing the process anytime soon).
Just allocate a weight by population per state (10% pop state gets 10% weight… Add a slight extra per state if still agreed.). Then take that state’s votes and multiply by the weight. 67% of the state’s votes gets 67% of that state’s weight nationally. There’s no need for a now purely ceremonial “electoral college” since SCOTUS determined they don’t get to actually “vote” anyways. Just add up the numbers.
Splitting the voting weight per state reduces any impact from things like weather affecting turnout in only a portion of states from impacting the results, or general vote suppression or encouragement by a state’s current government officeholders decreasing or increasing states’ relative influences.
Splitting by “district” could theoretically do similar, the problem is the gerrymandering opportunity.
There will always be need for the electoral college until and unless the Constitution is amended. The electoral college is at the root of the compromise which originally made possible The United States of America.
No. That goes right back to the liberal “one man one vote” agenda which contravenes the Constitution and the compromise which forms its basis. The United States Senate is not “one man one vote” and hence neither is our electoral college. And so it must remain.
As usual you don’t readchoose to ignore that what you are objecting about was already just said. I clearly said there’d need to be (and wouldn’t be) an amendment passed. That’s needed for the widespread implementation of the changes you (and others) are proposing as well.
The EC is already not functioning as in the constitution. “Bound” electors are no longer “voting”, they only serve a ceremonial purpose.
I disagree. The purpose they serve is owing to their numbers allowed from each state. Also they are an important aspect of a system which has served our country well for close to two hundred fifty years.
That’s just a math equation… Does not necessitate selection of “electors” who then won’t actually vote. The exact same distribution could be retained without impotent “electors”.
