It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

[jc456]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

You got a better idea? What makes you so certain there would be gerrymandering. ? THINK

There already HAS BEEN gerrymandering by the Duopoly, for decades. COME OUT FROM UNDER THE ROCK.

This change would not benefit either party. Lots of republican states that have liberal districts too..

--- which are already gerrymandered to concentrate them into minimal areas so that they can have more representation in the state legislature. THINK.

that whole fraud thingy.

 

[Fenton Lum]

This is from 2015 but it's a great article. Under our present winner-take-all system, lots of voters know their vote doesn't matter.

This is a state by state issue.

And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?

For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?

I am not completely against the idea- just that there is no practical way to address it without a Constitutional Amendment.

A national election is a state by state issue, brilliant.

Are you kidding?????

Stupid much?

Could you manage to state something perhaps?

It is a state by state issue and must stay that way.

Wow, deep, thanks.

 

[Pop23]

This is a state by state issue.

And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?

For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?

I am not completely against the idea- just that there is no practical way to address it without a Constitutional Amendment.

A national election is a state by state issue, brilliant.

Are you kidding?????

Stupid much?

Could you manage to state something perhaps?

It is a state by state issue and must stay that way.

Wow, deep, thanks.

I may have missed your point of the first post? If so, oops

 

[BlindBoo]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

For a country of rural farmers it was. Fastest form of communication was a horse.

 

[jwoodie]

States are already free to adopt this method of apportioning electoral votes (e.g., Maine and Nebraska).

 

[mvymvy]

States are already free to adopt this method of apportioning electoral votes (e.g., Maine and Nebraska).

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, Romney won nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts
Nationwide, there are now only 10 "battleground" districts that are expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President
In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President


After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the only state in the past century that has split its electoral votes between presidential candidates from two different parties,
Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, andthe leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any district or state or throughout the country.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

 

[mvymvy]

This is from 2015 but it's a great article. Under our present winner-take-all system, lots of voters know their vote doesn't matter.

This is a state by state issue.

And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?

For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?

I am not completely against the idea- just that there is no practical way to address it without a Constitutional Amendment.

A national election is a state by state issue, brilliant.

Are you kidding?????

Stupid much?

Could you manage to state something perhaps?

It is a state by state issue and must stay that way.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

 

[mvymvy]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

You got a better idea? What makes you so certain there would be gerrymandering. ? THINK

The popular vote is the better idea, then no one can claim their vote doesn't count.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

 

[jwoodie]

A national popular vote would allow the Democrat political machines in our major cities to withhold their vote tallies until it was known how many votes were needed to elect the Democratic candidate. The last line of defense against this is the electoral college, which isolates the vote count within each state. Thank God it would take 3/4 of the states to approve a change to this Constitutional provision.

 

[mvymvy]

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

By gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?

You got a better idea? What makes you so certain there would be gerrymandering. ? THINK

Because there is now you dipshit and the presidential election would be affected by it

 

[mvymvy]

State-by-state winner-take-all laws were enacted by 48 states AFTER the Constitution was written.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method.

 

[mvymvy]

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

 

[mvymvy]

Although the procedures vary from state to state, representatives of the candidates, political parties, proponents and opponents of ballot measures, civic groups, and the media typically all have the ability to immediately obtain the vote count from every precinct for local, statewide, and national elections. Indeed, the almost-instant availability of precinct-level vote tallies provides the basis for the vote tallies that are posted on government web sites and broadcast by the media on Election Night.

Existing state laws also require rapid transmission of official documentation of vote tallies to some designated central location (e.g., the secretary of state).

Shortly after Election Day, local authorities make official determinations on the eligibility to vote of provisional ballots that were cast on Election Day, and the additional official documents are created at the local level to reflect the results of including eligible provisional ballots in the precinct totals. In addition, in the process of rechecking local vote tallies, local authorities sometimes notice and correct administrative errors that may have occurred on Election Night (e.g., transposing digits, accidentally double-counting a precinct).

Within a few weeks after Election Day (long before the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December), “official returns” consisting of the precinct-level vote tallies for President exist in at least two separate places in every state.
● at the level of the precinct or unit of local government where the votes were actually counted, and
● at the state office to which the local vote counts were transmitted.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

 

[jwoodie]

Although the procedures vary from state to state, representatives of the candidates, political parties, proponents and opponents of ballot measures, civic groups, and the media typically all have the ability to immediately obtain the vote count from every precinct for local, statewide, and national elections. Indeed, the almost-instant availability of precinct-level vote tallies provides the basis for the vote tallies that are posted on government web sites and broadcast by the media on Election Night.

Existing state laws also require rapid transmission of official documentation of vote tallies to some designated central location (e.g., the secretary of state).

Shortly after Election Day, local authorities make official determinations on the eligibility to vote of provisional ballots that were cast on Election Day, and the additional official documents are created at the local level to reflect the results of including eligible provisional ballots in the precinct totals. In addition, in the process of rechecking local vote tallies, local authorities sometimes notice and correct administrative errors that may have occurred on Election Night (e.g., transposing digits, accidentally double-counting a precinct).

Within a few weeks after Election Day (long before the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December), “official returns” consisting of the precinct-level vote tallies for President exist in at least two separate places in every state.
● at the level of the precinct or unit of local government where the votes were actually counted, and
● at the state office to which the local vote counts were transmitted.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

I see that you have abandoned your National Popular Vote scheme. That's a good start.

Now if you could just get over the fact that Bush won Florida...

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is virtually impossible to make a rational argument that the leader of a democratic government in a democratic country can rightfully be the candidate who lost the popular vote in the election.

 

[Ozone]

the problem originates with the idea that the number of electoral votes per state should correspond with the number of congressmen per state, but a legislative district is not the same thing as an administrative district. these are two different functions in a separation of powers. maybe the electoral college would be better if each county of each state had one electoral vote independent of all the other counties and states, that is, avoiding the winner-take-all methods. ohio has 88 counties, that's 88 electoral votes up for grabs, no ''battleground'' status necessary.

 

[Bush92]

Let's go with state house districts. GOP controls 2/3rds of state houses because at grassroots level across the country people are conservative.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This change would not benefit either party. Lots of republican states that have liberal districts too..

So Obama winning in 2012 while Republicans held the House, how would that turn out in a congressional electoral format?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The electoral college is just an antiquated leftover from the days of yore when the states still saw themselves as little countries.